Law, and The Law by Editor

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Nov 13, 1879

Law, and The Law.

By Editor

A LETTER from a friend in one of the States east of the Rocky Mountains, relates a conversation with a prominent Disciple preacher, in which he endeavored to show that the ten commandments are not now binding. It says:—

"I asked him if it is lawful to do those things now which were forbidden in the ten commandments. He said, No; that the principles are still in force, but their set form, as the ten commandments, is now done away; and it is law now—not the law."

Let us briefly notice the two points in this statement:—

1. The principles of the commandments still exist, and therefore it is now wrong to worship other gods, and to bow down to, and adore, images, or to profane the name of God, exactly as it was when the law was in force. It is now wrong to dishonor parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, and to covet, because the principles of these precepts now existing bind to the same duties and forbid the same sins which the precepts themselves did when they were in force. Now if this be so,—if the principle is in every respect equivalent to the precept in each of these cases, why does not the principle of the fourth commandment, in like manner, bind to the same duty which the commandment itself enjoined? If it does not, who can tell why not? The reason certainly exists still. If the abolition of the "set form" of the decalogue did not release from the duties enjoined in that instrument, how is it that we are not now under obligation to observe the Sabbath day of the decalogue? The truth is, there is a lameness in the logic of that position which at once brands it as an error. Those who assume the position affect both ability and knowledge. If they really possess that to which they pretend they must perceive the weakness of their argument.

2. There is a distinction claimed between "law," and "the law." Law, in the abstract, is presumed to embrace the "principles," while "the law," is presumed to embrace the precepts themselves. Eld. Vogel, a very well-known preacher of that denomination, argued this position in a discussion which he held in Illinois; afterward, in a discussion with us, he undertook to appropriate the benefit of the position to his side of the question. But when we invited him to assume the position openly, and to offer his proof on such use of the article in the Greek of the New Testament, he declined. Why will any man try to use a position which he will not try to defend?

We will now make a statement regarding this assumption which we think we can justify by the Scriptures. It is this: No man who can read the Greek of the New Testament can honestly claim the benefit of this distinction. If any think that we do injustice in this statement, we answer, that no greater injustice can be done to any one than he does to himself who assumes a false position respecting the word of God. And any one who has examined the Greek of the New Testament, knows that no such distinction exists as that claimed between "law" and "the law." See the proof.

Remember, it is assumed that "the law," the definite article being used, refers to the ten commandments, not now binding; and that "law," in the absence of the article, refers to law in the abstract, to principles, not the decalogue. Now Paul says, "the carnal mind is not subject to the law; Rom. 8:7. That "the law is spiritual;" and he delighted in the law; ch. 7:14, 22. That we "are not under the law, [principles] but under grace;" ch. 6:14. That "by the deeds of law shall no flesh be justified;" while "all the world," Jew and Gentile, is guilty before God when the law speaks; that the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law; and that we are justified by faith without deeds of law; ch. 3:19, 20, 21, 28. That when the Gentiles which have not law, do the things which are contained in the law, these having not law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts; that they who make their boast of law (principles), through breaking the law (the decalogue) dishonor God; if the uncircumcision, the Gentile, keep the righteousness of the law, it shall be counted to him for circumcision—he will be accepted of God; the uncircumcision by nature, if it fulfill (keep) the law, shall judge or condemn those who by the letter and circumcision transgress law; ch. 2:14, 15, 23, 26, 27.

Now we are willing to rest it with the candid reader that the use (or omission) of the article in these texts does not at all help the opposers of the decalogue; and that if such a distinction as they claim did exist, it would stand against their position on the assumed abolition of the law.

The truth is that the use and omission of copulatives in the originals of the Bible is largely idiomatic or euphonic, as every reader must know. A little examination of the texts here cited will convince any one that "law" and "the law" (law with and without the article), in Paul's letter to the Romans, refers to one and the self-same instrument—the decalogue, or ten commandments.

After years of study and careful examination of objections and assumptions we are convinced that the more antinomianism shows itself, the more it exposes its own weakness. It is a maze of darkness which bewilders those who walk in its ways. "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Prov. 6:23. They who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus will be accepted of the Saviour in the day of his appearing. Rev. 14:12-14.