PERMANENCE OF THE MORAL LAW.
By Samuel Miles
THERE is not an institution or ordinance which the Decalog was intended to guard, which Christianity does not require it still to protect, whether it has reference to the purity of worship, to the sanctified and weekly observance of the Sabbath, to the honor due to parents, or to the respect due to the person and the property of others. Christianity not only enjoins all that the Ten Commandments insisted on, but justifies its action by appealing to the commandments themselves, thereby treating them as an immaculate and abiding authority, even tho “a man is not justified by the works of the law, save thru faith in Jesus Christ.” Gal. 2:16, R.V. The privileges of Christianity add the weight of their testimony in confirmation of the continuance of laws ordained to uphold the rights of man and to protect the rights of God. These privileges increase responsibility, but they do not release from essential duty. Redemption from “the curse of the law” is neither an exclusion from its benefits nor a discharge from its obligations. That redemption secures for us the “grace” which transforms duty into a delight, by inciting and enabling us to do all that is commanded, not in a spirit of fear, but from a spirit of sincerest love. Where this principle of love is, the letter of the law is insufficient as a limit to the obedience rendered, for it prompts the fullest possible compliance with every demand both of the original law and with the requirements of the same law when illumined by the “grace and truth” which “came by Jesus Christ.” We Can Never Outgrow Them.
Thus, whether we consider the condition of mankind or the moral government of God, whether we go to Sinai or to Mount Zion, whether we examine the principles of the Decalog or their use in the Christian economy, we find irrefragable evidence of the permanence of laws which “never grow old thru the long lapse of waning years.” We also find abundant proof that, whatever our progress may be, it will never obliterate the stamp of perpetuity which God has impressed upon these laws, nor permit exemption from the obedience to them which that very perpetuity involves. No Distinction Permitted.
To make distinctions in laws all of which are of equal authority and which are coexistent with each other, with a view of selecting some for acceptance and others for rejection, is to question the wisdom which instituted the whole; and, in respect to the moral law, it betrays a reluctance to accept the divine will as the final arbiter of duty. It thus savors of suspicion and distrust, and these should have no place in those who owe fealty to the King of heaven. No self-respecting monarch allows his subjects to treat the statutes of his realm after their own pleasure; and no loyal subjects pretend to have liberty to do so. Heaven’s King has delegated to no subject of His, either human or angelic, a right to do as he pleases with His laws. He rules as well as reigns, and where He draws no distinction He permits others to draw none. No Degrees of Comparison.
In these commandments—a term representing the law—there are no degrees of comparison; and such pharisaic subterfuges are a perversion of truth which Christ condemns, their effect being to “break” or to annul divine precepts by discounting the importance of some portion of valid and necessary statutes. Such an offense, whether in the teacher or the taught, can not be committed with impunity. “As I have done,” said Adonibezek, “so God hath requited me.” So shall it be in this instance. He who would diminish God’s laws and set holy precepts aside, by explaining away their force and meaning, shall be himself diminished by being reduced, in the retributive providence of God, to a similar condition of dishonor as that to which he assigns the distinguished commands of the Most High. Verily, “them that honor Me I will honor, and they that despise Me shall be lightly esteemed.” The same principle of righteous judgment is observed in regard to those who candidly recognize the imperative duty of upholding the law in its integrity, and who “stumble” not “in one point,” but diligently and sincerely act up to the responsibilities of their position by consistently declaring “the whole counsel of God.” “Whosoever shall do and teach” these enduring “Commandments” in all their fullness and obligation, “he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven,” by having meted out to him some exceptional favor, which shall be equivalent to the just and honorable esteem in which he holds the royal mandates of the Eternal King, who renders “to every man according to his works.” To Be Unhesitatingly Obeyed.
The fourth commandment, like its co-precepts, is not to be suspiciously received, but is to be unhesitatingly obeyed. The suspicion which has been cast upon it is groundless. That it was given thru Moses in no way affects it. So were all the commandments. If one law is to be deprived of its continuous value on this account, the laws to which it is allied, and which were communicated at the same time and in the same manner, must be similarly deprived. But a duly-authenticated message, conveyed by a properly-accredited messenger, is always valid; and in respect to its authority, permanence, and need, there is nothing which differentiates this particular edict from its associates. The same must be said of its contents, which bear no trace whatever of a human element in their composition; for the real text of the commandments is not in the summary given in Deuteronomy 5, but in the words of Jehovah as recorded in Exodus 20. Moses knew how genuine and how divine the contents of the several laws were, and his repeated testimony (Ex. 20:1; Deut. 5:4, 5, 22-24) is ever corroborative of the statement that “the Lord said unto” him, “Come up to Me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them” (Ex. 24:12). Thus God Himself placed upon permanent record the laws He had already spoken. No exception is noted in any of them, and no human skill was employed in the construction of any one of them. Had it been, the value of the one so treated would have been depreciated, and it could not have been accepted, in full confidence, as a mandate of Jehovah of binding obligation. Witnessing, as the fourth command does, to the holiness of God, to man’s relation thereto, and to his duty in respect thereof, it is certain that this command was3neither devised nor composed by human ingenuity. Our Lord, too, spoke of the law in its entirety, and as it was known and received, and so included the fourth. Considering what the Sabbath means, and what it actually is to humanity, it is not pleasing to reflect that of all the “Ten Words,” the fourth is most disparaged, and that this benign command is the one most distasteful, even to persons who would not lessen the dimensions of the Decalog except in this particular. Happily for these persons, as well as for others, such depletion is impossible. He who “knew all things,” taught a more excellent way of glorifying God and of promoting the good of mankind than curtailing the Decalog, and that was to accept it in its wholeness, and to evidence that acceptance by keeping it in its wholeness always, the fourth precept as well as the other nine precepts, and no less earnestly and constantly than the other nine.—Rev. Samuel Miles, Wesleyan.