p. 4 | What Shall We Do with the Fourth Commandment?

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Feb 27, 1912

What Shall We Do with the Fourth Commandment?

By Mrs. L. D. Avery-Stuttle

II—The Reasonableness of the Entire Ten Commandments

“Come now, and let us reason together.”

NOW to the question, “Why don’t you talk about the binding force of the other nine commandments, as much as you do about the Sabbath?”

I think I can make it plain by the use of a homely illustration:

There was once a poor man who was suffering intense pain from a bad wound upon one of his fingers.

The doctor came.

“Do you think, doctor, that you will be able to discover which of my ten fingers is wounded? I am quite satisfied with my other nine fingers, and it would be a pity to waste valuable time and medicine upon them, as long as I acknowledge them to be good, sound fingers.”

But the doctor sat down — he was a very foolish doctor — and began industriously applying bandages and liniment to all the fingers alike.

“I must treat them all the same, of course, because they are all of equal value and importance to you,” insisted the foolish doctor.

It is quite needless to guess that this doctor was not called again.

All over the Christian world — with small exception — any man who would openly advocate the breaking of any other of the Ten Commandments save the fourth, would be considered unsafe to the public welfare, and to say the least, an undesirable citizen.

What would be thought of a minister of the Gospel who would stand up in his pulpit week after week and protest very solemnly that he believed the commandment which prohibited stealing to be just as binding upon man as it was before the cross; also that it was his deep conviction that it was wrong to commit murder or adultery, or to make images to worship, and that he hoped to be able thus to convince his hearers? How long before this minister would be adjudged insane?

Why?

Both the answer and the application are too plain to excuse explanation.

Once a very respectable appearing young man presented himself before Christ. He was very wealthy. But he thought he would like to possess not only this world, but the next also; and he asked, “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

At once Christ referred him to a certain law as the rule by which he must order his life. At that time there were three laws in force, the moral, the ceremonial, and the civil; therefore in answer to the young man’s request, Christ specified a few of the ten commands as indicating the law to which He referred.

“Yes; but He said nothing at all about the Sabbath, or about the keeping of Saturday; hence presumably it was about to be done away.”

Wait a moment. Since the Master mentioned none of the first four at this time, shall we conclude that He gave the young man liberty to violate them?

Shall we infer that it then became right and pleasing to God to blaspheme His name, or to make graven images? — Never! This view of the situation proves too much, consequently proves nothing.

“Come now, and let us reason together.”

Do you think that the Almighty would place one commandment in the very heart of His law, and then take it away, or abolish it, or change it in any way whatever, and never make mention of the fact in the remotest manner — that very law, the keeping of which, as Christ told the young man, would insure the favor of God and life eternal?

Or do you think that God was so desirous of getting rid of the fourth commandment, that He would abolish the whole ten, and then re-enact some of them? Why, even the most whimsical human lawmaker would hardly act so foolishly. Indeed, can any one imagine any reason why the almighty Framer of the earth and skies could wish to cover up or hide the fact from man, that HE IS THE CREATOR? Does He so intensely desire to turn our minds away from Himself, that He should abolish the one memorial of His creative work? The thought is as God-dishonoring and repulsive as the logic is erroneous.

But we can readily understand why the arch-enemy of all good should want to do this very deed — should maneuver and plot to banish a knowledge of the true God from the earth. Hence he seeks to abolish God’s memorial — the seal of Jehovah — by which God had intended to keep fresh in the heart of man a knowledge of Himself and His almighty creative power.

“Come now, and let us reason together.”

It would fare badly with any man or set of men who undertook to tamper with the great seal of the State. Why? — Because the power of the State is embodied in its seal. But what is the seal of a country? — It is the official signature. What is the seal of the law of God? — It is His signature — the sign of His authority — His name as Creator. Is it necessary that the great seal of the State should be affixed to its laws? Then a thousandfold more necessary is it that the Almighty should affix His eternal seal to His eternal law. Shall we charge Him with the sublime folly of neglecting to do, in His law, that which is so necessary even in the laws of earthly kings or lawmakers? Never. Impute not folly to the infinite in wisdom.