p. 439 | The Law of Love by John Harvey Waggoner

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 22, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 28.

The Law of Love.

By John Harvey Waggoner

A NOTABLE objection against the ten commandments is often presented in about the following shape:—

The great duty taught in the gospel is that of love; if we truly love God and our neighbor, we may safely dispense with the ten commandments, and, indeed, with all law—everything legal. In carrying out this objection, one writer urged that the ten commandments could not be enforced in Heaven, because there are penalties attached, and we cannot conceive of penalties in Heaven, where everything is love. Hence, the nearer we approach to our heavenly state—that is, the more we are influenced and controlled by love—the farther we are removed from the obligation of the ten commandments. And thus he concludes that the only obligation in Heaven is expressed in the two great precepts given by the Saviour,—love to God and to our neighbor.

Nothing could be more inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible than the above objection. Its whole intent is sheer lawlessness, and its fallacy ought to be apparent to every reader.

1. It is not inconsistent with Heaven's order that penalty should be regarded there. Penalty was once enforced in Heaven, when Lucifer tried to rise superior to Heaven's law, and would be again if any tried there to set aside the law of God. The carnal mind, which "is not subject to the law of God," would not be tolerated in Heaven as it is on earth. And sin is not tolerated here because it is not offensive to God. He abhors it, and denounces it, and will yet severely punish it. He bears with it until the Judgment, when presumption will receive its just reward.

2. The duty to love God and our neighbor is put forth in the form of two commandments, or laws. But the objection now being considered against the decalogue is that it is law—that it does contain commandments, and therefore must have penalties. Then, query: Is there no penalty attached to the two great commandments to love God and our neighbor? which is the same as to ask, Is there no guilt incurred in refusing or failing to love God and our neighbor? Is there no meaning to the curse pronounced upon him who does not love the Lord Jesus Christ? May a man indeed hate his brother and not be a murderer? And when we get to

Heaven, shall we be so far removed from legal restraint that we could violate them and still retain our position in Heaven and in the favor of God? We think if the projectors of such a theory took time to carefully consider its bearings, they would renounce it for very shame.

3. So far from these commandments being peculiar to the gospel, and different from a system of legal restraint, they are and were a part of a legal system, having been given to the Jews among other laws. The first is quoted from Deut. 6:5, and the second from Lev. 19:18. They are neither new in, nor peculiar to, the gospel. Therefore, when these are set forth as containing the highest development of Christian morality, it is a confession that the highest morality of the New Testament is identical with the morality of the Old Testament.

4. And so far from these being given as substitutes for the law by our Saviour, he presents them as the basis, or foundation, of "all the law." "On these hang all the law," he said. These two are the principles of which the law is the exposition. We have already examined the particulars, yet we can here take another view of them, thus:—

(1) We must love God. But can one truly love God and have other gods before him, or bow in adoration to idols, or profane his holy name? Every objector to the decalogue will answer in the negative. Thus far we are in agreement.

(2) We must love our neighbor. Can a man truly love his neighbor who takes his life, destroys the chastity of his family, steals his goods, ruins his reputation, or wishes any evil to him of any nature? Here, again, the objector answers, No; and here, again, we are in agreement. Thus far we find that the commandments are in perfect harmony with the great principles of love to God and to man.

But we have not yet reached the extent of our Saviour's declaration. We have only examined three of the four precepts on the first table, or nine of the entire ten. The Saviour did not say, On these two hang three-fourths or nine-tenths of the law, but, "On these two commandments hang all the law." According to this decision of Jesus, a man has not fully developed the principle of love to God who has observed the first three commandments and the last six. "All the law" includes the fourth precept, "the Sabbath of Jehovah our God." This also "hangs" on the principle of love to God. Greenfield defines kremantai, in this text, "To depend from or on, be contained in, derive authority from." The ten commandments are all "contained in" love to God and to our fellow-men.

5. And so far from a man loving God in keeping three-fourths or nine-tenths of the law, he is not considered as truly keeping any unless he keeps it all. We do not presume to determine how great allowance must be made for one who is ignorant of the full requirement of the law, and who, with an obedient spirit, keeps it according to the best light he may have. But he who intentionally sets aside one of its precepts, or who understands what the commandment requires, but chooses, for reasons satisfactory to himself, to do some other way than that marked out in the law, surely falls under the condemnation pronounced by the inspired apostle: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Jas. 2:10. True obedience does not choose how much to do of the revealed will of God.

6. Let it be remembered that the Sabbath is the sole object of attack in all pretended arguments against the law. Against the other nine no one has an objection. But men have discovered that it is impossible to destroy the fourth and leave the others intact. And they are so determined to get rid of the Sabbath that they are willing to sacrifice the whole ten to accomplish their object. Do they ever well consider the consequences of their action? Have they calmly viewed the aspect of society when the authority of the law of God is weakened? The world is sufficiently filled with the spirit of lawlessness without having professed Christians break down all restraint by teaching that the ten commandments are no longer binding.

As a theory, and to evade the Sabbath, many teach freedom from the ten commandments as a rule of life, while their sober conviction denies their theory. The advocates of Sunday well understand that they cannot go before an intelligent, reading people and uphold the Sunday by the fourth commandment. But it must be enforced, Bible or no Bible. Therefore they adopt the expedient of throwing it into politics, and base its obligation on "a police regulation," and then, to meet the Bible argument for the claims of the seventh day, declare that the ten commandments were "a Jewish law," the keeping of which is inconsistent with Christian liberty! Woe to the world, when Christian ministers thus destroy the distinction between liberty and license to evil—to lawlessness. J. H. W.