A Spiritual Autobiography—II
By J. A. L. Derby
The Perfection of the Law
In last week's article I gave an account of how I came to regard the Decalogue as the summary of the whole will of God. As there noted, this belief was not arrived at primarily by finding in the Old Testament argument for such a conclusion, but by the fact that the Messiah so taught, and furthermore, by the fact that He lived what He taught. But this process of reasoning by no means warranted me in discarding Old Testament evidences of the Ten Commandments' being the divine epitome of the whole duty of man. Christ's acceptance of the Old Testament presentation of that subject, is evidently but added emphasis to every text there which tends to set apart the Decalogue as the moral law. He took for granted the validity and adequateness of the testimony of the Old Testament as to the law of the two tables being a divinely abridged statement of man's spiritual obligations. It should, however, be remembered, that such testimony has weight only through Jesus Christ — only because He approved it. In studying the headship of Christ I came to see that every Old Testament argument to establish the law spoken from Sinai as the supreme law of God for the present dispensation, must ultimately rest either explicitly or implicitly on the authority of Christ. I could then readily see how it is that good and perfectly well-meaning people may get the reputation of being legalists. I have heard such accused of trying to get righteousness from the law. It was due to their founding merely on the Old Testament their argument for the Ten Commandments as the criterion of righteousness, instead of approaching through Christ the Old Testament evidence. In the gospel age, since the coming of Him who was "to be the Head over all things to the church" (Eph. 1:22), "that in all things He might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18), our whole duty, and every particular duty, must rest directly or indirectly on the doctrine of Jesus. The Master Fully Accepted the Old Testament
After the American colonies became independent of Great Britain, the English common law remained binding in this country, not because it was the law of England, but because the colonies approved it. Whatever the legislatures of these colonies rejected, lost all force as law, no matter to what extent such an English law might serve as a precedent. And Jesus did fully and completely accept the Old Testament standard of righteousness — the Ten Commandments. What then was I to do? There was no possibility of evasion. He was God manifest in human flesh. What He accepted I must accept. But I was a Sunday-keeper. Must I keep Saturday? Every recorded word spoken by the Master to whom I had now sworn allegiance, come life or death (for I had been publicly baptized), every recorded act, was now gone over afresh with the closest scrutiny. The study of this matter led me to the consideration of three further subjects: (a) the perfection or imperfection of the Decalogue, (b) the authority of all the Old Testament, (c) the authority of that part of the New Testament after the book of Acts. Christ Himself left no written records. Whatever we know of Him or of what is implied in His teachings, we must get from the writings of others. Now in some of the books following the Acts, in the New Testament, I found some texts which superficially seemed to indicate that Christ, through the writers of the books containing these texts, might possibly, if those books were inspired, have made some changes in the Decalogue after His ascension. I saw the necessity of reaching some reliable conclusion regarding the character and authority of these books. Authority of the Old Testament
As regards the authority of the Old Testament as a whole, the attitude of Christ is decisive. The "Scriptures" of His day were the Old Testament of Protestants today. Never once did He by the slightest word indicate that any book of the canon then accepted was not inspired. A few of His words will illustrate His position. Speaking (Matt. 26:53, 54) of His power to rescue Himself from those who would crucify Him, He said: "Thinkest thou that I can not now pray to My Father, and He shall presently give Me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" Again (John 10:35), "The Scripture can not be broken." Still further, "Search the Scriptures; . . . they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39). Notice yet again the statement by Luke (24:27, 44, 45): "And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in6all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. . . . And He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures." That the omniscient God-man should thus view the sacred writings of His race, was to me convincing. That they were, as far as they went, the infallible revelation of the divine will, was for me the unavoidable conclusion. It matters not how much of those records I do not understand; their inspiration is not thereby impaired. The greater includes the less. Authority of the New Testament
Historically, I consider the authenticity and genuineness of Paul's epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, as most easily established. No critic, however adverse, will, with any respect for his reputation as a scholar, assert that Paul was not the author of these books. As I remarked in my previous article, when I once learned that a thing is true, I never felt that before it was allowed to bind my reason and conscience, I must delay till I could further prove truth inspired. Indeed, for a doubter to make such a demand seemed to me unnecessary and unreasonable. That inspiration has advantages, especially to one already a believer, is of course, beyond question. There are parts of the Bible far less interesting than are numerous secular books which are true; yet these parts of Holy Writ, because of the regard we have for their inspiration, are read a thousand times more. Again, a writing not having the guaranty of being "God-breathed," always suffers from the possibility of containing error. No such presumption or assumption can obtain against an inspired document. But as I viewed the matter, the very proof of inspiration is the truth of the evidences therefor; that is, we examine the truth of the evidences concerning that for which inspiration is claimed, and if these evidences are true, and in relevancy and number sufficient, we accept the inspiration as a fact. We do not prove a statement true by showing it to be found in a book assumed to be inspired; we must first prove the truth of the claim of inspiration for the book. It was thus I approached the writings of Paul. His veracity and mental competency once established, his inspiration follows, for he says that he obtained his doctrine from God: "I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Gal. 1:11, 12. How I came to believe in the Heaven-sent nature of the remainder of the New Testament is here unnecessary to give in detail. For the most part it was through the consistency of these writings with all that I had thus far found to be inspired. The book of Revelation has the added proof of the fulfilment of its prophecies. My inventory of faith now showed both the Old and New Testaments fully accepted. Thus equipped, I was ready to return to the study of the perfection of the law of the Ten Commandments. Was the Decalogue as spoken by God from Sinai's summit a perfect law? If it was, there could be no change of the Sabbath commandment, or of any other. But what do we really mean by perfection? One of the definitions found in the dictionary seems to be the proper one for this place. It is, "That degree of completeness in which nothing essential or desirable is lacking." A Law That Needs No Change
Historically tested, as in the United States, it is found impossible for the wisdom of man to frame a legal constitution that will need no amendment during the ages. In a hundred years we have amended our organic law almost a score of times. But against an all-powerful and all-wise God, no such presumption of inability can for a moment be entertained. That God could make a perfect law eternally adequate for the universe, including men, angels, and the unfallen inhabitants of other worlds, must in logic be admitted. Now it is obvious that such a fundamental law must be one of principles rather than of particular actions, because of the simple fact that no book could be large enough to name and give instruction to meet every emergency in the infinitely complex relations of the billions of beings in the universe. If, then, such a law must consist of principles rather than of explicit instances, what greater perfection could reason demand than that of a law having but one principle, and that principle expressed in one word? Wonderful as it may seem, the Bible reveals just such a law. No wonder the great apostle exclaims, "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" Are you interested to know where this principle is recorded? Let me read it to you: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
"Jesus said unto him, 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." Matt. 22:35-40. "But," some one may say, "this is two principles, not one." Look again. These are but two phases of the same principle. Note the principle,—LOVE. What a revelation is this of the character of God and His law? Love! No argument is necessary to prove the perfection of a principle which reason, instinct, and intuition proclaim supreme. Personally, I found myself wholly unable to imagine what more I should or could look for in a perfect principle. But One Principle; Many Applications
The law of God, then, has but one absolute principle of action, tho that principle has millions of applications. All other things are relative. Only one thing is at all times, in all places, under all circumstances, right. The moral quality of every other action depends on circumstances. Elisha permitted Naaman to bow down to idols. 2 Kings 5: 17-19. The hangman frequently takes the life of man, and that without guilt. Gen. 9:6, passim. Work of necessity or duty is lawful on the Sabbath, etc. It would be interesting and profitable to notice some of the characteristics of the law of God; as, first, its perfection, already discussed (Ps. 19:7); second, its unity, having but one principle, to violate any application of which is to transgress the principle, as says James (2:10), "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all;" third, its spirituality (Rom. 7:14); fourth, that it is holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12, 13); fifth, that it is a law of liberty (James 1:25; 2:12); sixth, that it is the standard by which we shall be judged (James 2:12); seventh, that it is the law of God's kingdom, the royal law (James 2:8); and many other phases besides. But these are not now to our purpose. As just noted, James says that this perfect law is the law of the kingdom. How extensive, then, is this kingdom? That God rules the universe, need not be said; all Scripture testifies to that. But I quote two texts: "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Thine; Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and Thou art exalted as head above all. Both riches and honor come of Thee, and Thou reignest over all." 1 Chron. 29:11, 12. Or again (Ps. 103:19), "The Lord hath prepared His throne in the heavens; and His kingdom ruleth over all." But "there are limits to the profitable elaboration of the obvious." God is King of the universe. He has but one law for men and angels. That law is the perfect law we have been discussing. The violation of this law is sin either in heaven or on earth. See 1 John 3:4, "Sin is the transgression of the law;" Rom. 4:15, "Where no law is, there is no transgression;" 2 Peter 2:4, "God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell." A Perfect Constitution of His Universal Kingdom
Now in my first article I showed how I found that the law which deals with sin, is summarized in the Decalogue. This is only one way, however; any person reading his Bible will find many proofs of the same thing. From this line of thought it became clear to me that the Ten Commandments, as spoken by God's own voice on Horeb, written by His own finger, carved by Him on two tables of enduring stone, and which His people were commanded to keep in a golden chest and observe on peril of their lives,—this law is the perfect constitution of His universal and eternal kingdom. It matters not that, for instance, angels are not fathers and mothers. A perfect law must provide for every emergency, tho the provision therefor may lie passive without application for millenniums. The earth, with fatherhood and motherhood, was in the purpose of God from eternity. The perfection of the Sinaitic law as an epitome of the whole duty of man, is evident not, perhaps, so much from the readiness with which every possible act can be subsumed logically under one of the ten as a genus, as from the fact that when the heart is completely permeated with obedience to these ten, it will be in the right attitude and spirit to render cheerful obedience to any command that God may give. For example, suppose there were no assignable reason for, say, the fourth commandment, except that God wills it; that is, if this were what the theologians call a "positive" command; would not obedience thereto prepare the heart and mind for any command God might give, even tho we in our finiteness might not be capable of seeing any good reason for such a behest? From the standpoint of the perfection of the law, I saw no excuse for expunging the Sabbath commandment.