Re-enactment of the Nine Commandments.
By R. F. Cottrell
THERE is good reason for saying that the Sabbath is distinct from the Levitical law. It was "made for man," in his innocency in Eden. Mark 2 : 27; Gen. 2 : 2, 3. The commandment enforcing its observance is the first precept recognized in the Scriptures as the "law" of God. Ex. 16. The Sabbath precept is the only one of the ten that traces itself back to the creation. Ex. 20. As far as inspiration or Bible history extends, the Sabbath is called the Sabbath, as though the institution really existed; and prophecy predicts its existence and observance in the new earth. Isa. 66 : 22, 23. It is true also that Jesus affirmed the perpetuity of every jot and tittle of the law, "till heaven and earth pass." Matt. 5 : 18. But if Paul tells us that the law that was written and engraven on stones was abolished, Jesus must have meant some other law than the ten commandments, though, in that case, it is difficult to tell what law he did mean, since it is clear that the handwriting of ordinances was nailed to the cross. But if it be assumed that the ten commandments were abolished, being nailed to the cross, we inquire about the re-enactment of the nine. Jesus, in his teaching, referred his hearers to five of the ten commandments; but it is difficult to conceive how he could re-enact them before they were abolished. If the ten were abolished at the cross, the labor of re-enacting five of them before the crucifixion, was lost unless that doubling them before prevented their breaking, and so they escaped the fate of the other five, not being abolished at all. It is true that the pious women "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," after the crucifixion (Luke 23:56); but they had not yet learned that it was abolished. It is a little singular, however, that Luke, aided as he was by the Holy Spirit, had not discovered their mistake when he wrote his gospel, more than twenty years after the occurrence. As the nine commandments were not re-enacted before they were abolished, we must look to the writings of the apostles for their re-enactment. What they command all must admit to be binding upon Christians. But there is a little difficulty in the outset. All their epistles, and, in fact, every syllable of the New Testament, were written years after the crucifixion, the point of time where the commandments were abolished. But this is but a slight objection, as it was but a very few years, say from thirty to sixty, that men were without any law to God whatever—from the crucifixion to A. D. 54, when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, or to A. D. 97, when John finished his writings. Antinomians, it is probable, held jubilee during this period, but their rejoicings soon came to an end. The apostles soon re-enacted the nine commandments, or as many of them as they repeated in their writings. But now the question arises, How did they re-enact them? An examination of their writings will show. Paul is the only apostle, with the exception of one passage in James, who in his writings repeats any one of the nine commandments. As he was the apostle to the Gentiles, it seems reasonable that he should be the one to re-enact the commandments for them. It is true that it was some few years after the gospel dispensation was fully begun, when he was converted, he having persecuted the church, even unto strange cities. But this, as we said before, is but a small break in the law of God. The beloved disciple, in his general epistle, has much to say about the commandments, and attaches great importance to the keeping of them, affirming that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." Says he, "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." But John does not re-enact or repeat one of the nine commandments. It was unnecessary for him to reiterate what had already been given. So he only refers us to the old commandment, "the word" which had come down from the beginning, and the "new commandment" which Jesus gave his disciples, that they love one another. How then did Paul and James re-enact the nine commandments? We will read:— "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. "He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Rom. 13:8–10. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right. Honor thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Eph. 6:1–3. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Jas 2:10, 11. Such are the apostolic re-enactments; and these are all, though but six of the nine that are binding are given. There are other references to the moral duties contained in the commandments, but they are treated as principles already established and acknowledged. And these too, it must be admitted, appear as much like appeals to a standing code of acknowledged authority and supremacy, as like new enactments for this dispensation. Had the apostles left out such expressions as "I had not known sin but by the law;" "the law had said," "hath fulfilled the law," "if there be any other commandment," and "he that said," or "the law that said" (margin), etc., they would have appeared to us more in the character of lawgivers. If a judge, in giving a charge to a jury, should tell them that the law in the case said so and so, it would be strange if any one should conjecture that he had assumed the duties of a legislator, and was enacting laws by which to try the cause in question. And it must be confessed that the apostles appear before us rather as appealing to an existing, supreme law, from which there is no appeal, than as enacting new laws or re-enacting old ones which had been abolished. Says Paul, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right." How do you know, Paul, that it is right? Have you any known and acknowledged law to prove it? "Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise." This commandment, with the annexed promise, is found in the decalogue, but not in any other place in the New Testament. And as this is the only place in the apostolic teachings where it is inserted, it follows, that had not Paul had occasion to back up his teaching to children by authority, this commandment would not have been re-enacted in the "new law." But we have it; and it is well for us, for we could not well do without it. Paul is the only writer in the New Testament that gives us the tenth commandment; or, rather, the precept, Thou shalt not covet; for there can be no tenth commandment in the "new code," which consists of but nine. The two places where it is repeated have been quoted above. Read them again as re-enactments. Paul had found himself a sinner, but had repented and found pardon through Christ. But it seems he would not have discovered his sinfulness, had he not re-enacted the law, Thou shalt not covet. It seems indeed strange how this commandment could convict him years after it was abolished, and years before he re-enacted it. Such as the foregoing is the flimsy covering with which thousands are trying to cover themselves, against the day of wrath, which is just before us. It will be found too narrow and too unsubstantial in that day when "the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place." Not one of the ten commandments has been re-enacted in the New Testament, for the very good reason that none of them have been abolished. If even the Sabbath commandment had been abolished, there would have been a necessity for its re-enactment; for all are agreed that we need a Sabbath. "But," says the objector, "the fourth commandment is left out of the New Testament." So, I reply, is the first, the second, and the third. "But the principles of these commandments are recognized in the New Testament." So is the Sabbath and the commandment enforcing its observance. The women rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment, after the handwriting of ordinances had been nailed to the cross. And the Sabbath is mentioned as an existing institution, many times more than any other commandment of the ten. The wise will find a better shelter than the no-Sabbath system affords. God's truth will be their shield and buckler. His law is the truth. All his commandments are truth. And the truth has never been abolished, though so many desire it should be.