The Fifth Commandment by J. O. Corliss

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Dec 9, 1908

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 35, No. 19.

The Fifth Commandment

By J. O. Corliss

By J. O. Corliss

WHEN approached by a caviling lawyer, and asked to state which is the great, or most important, commandment in the law, Jesus replied: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy 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. 22:37-40.

This statement is most wondrously broad and comprehensive, because it establishes upon the immortal foundation of love, divided in two parts, the entire law of Jehovah. Thus grounded in eternal principles, the law must be as immutable as the mainspring of its existence. Besides, being cast in the mold of such substratum, it follows that each section of that law must necessarily bring to view some essential feature of the element which dominates its structure.

But while it is plain that each separate requirement of the law must appeal to the sentiment of love alone for its fulfilment, so also, to be a consistent and perfect structure, must the aggregate of these separate demands combine to form one great and all-important commandment of the Most High, even tho the one great requisition be equally divided, to meet the needs of heaven and earth alike. It is therefore clear that no single commandment of the ten can be properly elevated on high above its associates as the “great” commandment of the law. All are eternally alike in principle, and so equally binding upon all men to the end of time.

Thus we find God’s law composed of ten lesser commandments which, blended together, form one “great commandment,” the one great principle which forms the “first great commandment” demanding supreme love to God, branching into another, just like the first in elementary truth, but requiring only equal love to one’s fellow men. Thus every phase of the demands of the one great principle of love is met in the ten smaller expressions which make up the fulness of the complete law.

With this estimate of the law, it must appear evident that he who preserves in himself the wholeness of the first great commandment, which is to love God supremely, can not possibly think of preferring false gods before the true, nor of bowing in worship before images representing saints, or of taking in vain the name of God. Neither could he think of using God’s rest day for secular purposes, thus showing contempt for God’s request to honor Him in the observance of His own day of rest.

So also if one adheres to the second great division of that eternal love principle, and loves his neighbor as himself, he must certainly refrain from doing that to his neighbor which he would not be willing for any neighbor to practise on him. His first conception of duty in this respect would be toward his parents, that he might bestow upon them the honor due. The life of his fellow men would then appear in his estimation as his own life. The chastity of his neighbor’s wife, mother, or sister, would be held as inviolable as that of the members of his own household. He could not steal his neighbor’s property, because he would not wish his neighbor to rob him of any vested right. He could not lie against his fellow men, because he would not think it right for another to lie against him. Last of all, he could not even desire to take from another anything of value without tendering him a fair equivalent, because he would not consider it right for the other person to deal differently with him. In all transactions with others, one must carry out this eternal principle of love, if he would deal righteously.

It is not enough to do honor to some, or even most of these precepts, and disregard another; for then the infinite principle of love has been violated in some part, and thus to “offend in one point” is to become “guilty of all,”—that is to violate the whole great principle of love. James 2:10. This point is emphasized by the Saviour in His immortal statement: “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:18, 19.

This is indeed strong language, and places each of the ten least, or smaller, commandments where no one of them can be disregarded with impunity. And as tho He would throw around these ten commandments a yet stronger guard, the Saviour added this: “For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” What does this mean? The people referred to constantly transgressed one of God’s commandments by putting in its place a mere tradition. This pretended righteousness permitted them to teach that when a child wished so to do he could say “Corban” to his parents, and thus free himself from any obligation longer to honor them. This invented password given by the child was equivalent to, I have now dedicated myself to God and His service, so am wholly under His direction and His bidding. Whatever I may do for you from this time on must be counted a gift from me, since I am entirely free from your management. Compare Matt. 15:1-9 with Mark 7:11, 12.

How shortsighted on the part of that people to whom had been committed the oracles of God! Why did they not see that “God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother,” and that a direct consecration to God in no way diminished this obligation, but rather enhanced it? But in their estimation the human tradition was superior to, and really annulled, the principle of love for parents which the commandment required. They having made the commandment of God of no effect by their tradition, the Saviour pronounced them hypocrites, saying that their worship of God was all in vain for having thus treated a single requirement of the law. This was the extent of their righteousness, and the Saviour says in the statement already quoted, that whosoever breaks any one of God’s commandments, by substituting for it a human tradition, so placing his pretended righteousness on a par with that of the Pharisees, has no hope of entering the courts of heaven.

And why should not such a result obtain? The government of heaven is one of love. If one refuses here to obey the demands of this principle, in any degree, he becomes entirely unfitted to enter the place where that element controls every impulse. But how long must one obey these commandments, especially the precept which enjoins all to honor father and mother? When one attains his majority or becomes a parent himself, is he any longer under obligation to his parents? The question might be put in another form, thus: When one is grown to man’s estate, and able to care for himself, should he longer love father and mother,—those who have borne, nourished, and cared for him through health and sickness?

But how long should one love his parents after his own years have risen to maturity? If he fulfils the requirements of God’s law, adhering to its two great principles of love, he must still love them as he does himself. He can not knowingly wound their feelings by neglecting them in any particular. His words to them will be of a tender nature, and their memory will be sacredly cherished if the duties of life require his separation from them. In only one thing is a person justified in refusing to regard the wishes of parents, and that is when they require him to violate the requirements of God’s law. “Obey your parents in the Lord,” is the injunction. Eph.

6:1. "This is right," says the apostle. To obey parents "out" of the Lord would therefore be wrong. But even tho we refuse to obey them in doing that which is contrary to God's commandments, we are not to cease to honor them; that is, to keep them elevated in mind as parents.

One of the special characteristics of the last days is to be "disobedience to parents." 1 Tim. 3:1, 2. This feature of society is being now prominently developed, until father is referred to in street slang as the "old man," "governor," or "pop," and even mother, that dear soul of many heartaches in behalf of her beloved offspring, is dubbed the "old woman," or "granny."

The dear old-fashioned "father" and "mother," names which mean so much, are being forgotten, and their honor degraded. Why should we not hasten back to our baby love, and honor father and mother, and so have life prolonged in sweetness upon the land God has given us, according to that first commandment bearing a promise?