02.05. The Sabbath: Is the Decalogue Yet Binding?

CHAPTER V
IS THE DECALOGUE YET BINDING?

After it has been made to appear that there is no direct proof of the binding authority of the Sabbath, the friends of that institution undertake to sustain it in this indirect way. Of course, if the Decalogue is binding upon Christians, and we know the Sabbath to have been a part of it, then we must be under law to God to keep it.

1. It is first said that any other position than this frees the religious world from all moral obligation.

If we are not under that law, then we may bear false witness, steal, commit adul­tery, kill, dishonor our parents, covet, etc., etc. That being free from this law, we would be at liberty to commit all the things which it forbade. This always seemed to me a strange thing, that anyone could be found who would have no more regard for logic. The only question is, does the New Testament condemn these things? If it does, then no Christian is at liberty to do them. And everyone at all acquainted with that volume knows that each one of these crimes is condemned by the Master and by his apostles with greater clearness and force than they were in the law given at Sinai. Jesus not only taught the other nine commandments, but he gave to them features which they never had before. For the sake of illustration, let us turn to Mat 5:27-32, and see how he treats the question of adultery: “Ye have heard that it was said," etc., "but I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart." Then he shows them that whatever would lead them into such lust, they must put away from them. Not only so, but he who marries a woman not properly divorced, or divorced for any other cause than her companion’s unfaithfulness, commits adultery.

Again, read Mat 5:33-37 of this same chapter, on the subject of profanity. "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself..... But I say to you." Then follow directions, showing to them that many were guilty of profanity who never suspected it by reading the law.

Read what he has said on killing, in Mat 5:21-26 :

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill..... But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment." And the apostle John tells us that he who hates his brother is a murderer.

If you want to see the Master’s way of condemning idolatry or presenting the first commandment, read Mat 4:10; John 17:3; and if you would have a sample of the way in which the apostles condemned this sin, read Acts 14:8-15; Eph 4:6; Rev 4:10-11. The second command is sustained in Acts 15:28-29; Rom 8:3-4; I. John 5:20-21; 1Th 1:9.

Profanity, the third thing prohibited in the Decalogue, is condemned in Mat 5:33-37, and in Jas 5:12. In Mat 19:18-19, Jesus sustains five commandments, in the following order: Mat 19:7-9, Mat 19:5. In Rom 13:9, Paul presents five commandments in this order: Rom 13:7, Rom 13:6, Rom 13:8-10.

While, therefore, the authors of the New Testament gave but little if any heed to the order in which they occur in the Decalogue, they teach nine out of the ten of these commandments. But while they teach and thus bind these nine upon us, they do not do so because they were in that institution, but because they were right. No man is able to mention any sin which is not condemned in the New Testament.

2. It is affirmed that James teaches Christians to be in obedience to the Decalogue, and calls it the Royal Law. The language referred to is found in Jas 2:8-13. But it is very far from teaching what they affirm it to teach. Let us read it:

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, thou shalt do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 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. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judg­ment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment."

Now we find no such thing in this passage as that which they affirm. When James speaks of the royal law, or the perfect law of liberty, he mentions only those things which Christ had endorsed and bound upon the disciples. And especially, “Love thy neighbor as thyself," is not in the Decalogue, and yet he gives it as the royal law, which if we fulfill we shall do well. And if we offend in anyone feature of it—love to our neighbor —we are guilty. So now, though we are under a system in which mercy rejoices against judgment, and are therefore to be judged by the perfect law of liberty, yet we must so live as God has indicated in giving to us this great law of love. No one doubts that this royal law is the perfect law of liberty by which we are to be judged. Hence to know certainly what is meant by it, we have only to stop and inquire as to the law under which we shall be judged. A few texts of Scripture may therefore assist in determining this matter.

John 5:22 : “The Father has committed all judgment unto the Son."

Acts 17:31 : “God has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained.... Of this he has given assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him up again from the dead."

Rom 2:16 : “When God shall judge the secrets of men’s hearts by my gospel"—that is, the gospel which he had preached and was even then writing to them.

2Ti 4:1 : Christ shall “judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom."

Heb 10:30 : “The Lord shall judge his people."

1Pe 1:17 : This judgment will be by the Father, and yet as we have learned already it is to be accomplished by the Son. All through the book of Revelation Christ is represented as the judge. From Heb 10:28-29, we learn that those who live under the light of the New Institution shall be judged by it, and if those who disobeyed the “Old Law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses, there will be still a sorer punishment awarded to those who shall have trampled under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and thus done despite to the Spirit of grace." The teaching of the whole of the New Testament on this sub­ject is that those who lived under the law shall be judged by the law, and that those who lived without law, are to be judged according to the light which they had. But those who live under the New Testament shall be judged by it. Hence we know that the perfect law of liberty is the New Testament.

3. Such texts as speak of the knowledge of sin coming by the law, are eagerly seized upon as affording some aid and comfort for the doctrine of Adventism. The mere fact that an apostle mentions the law is, by them, taken as proof that the law was then in existence as a binding force in the minds of these inspired men. When Paul says: I had not known sin but by the law, he speaks of his early condition as a son of Jewish parents. Hence, like all other persons who were trained and educated under the law, it was from that source that he had his early training concerning right and wrong. But what this may have to do in proving that, the law yet remains as a rule by which Christians should live, can only be seen by someone who is bound to find proof of his doctrine and knows of no other place to look for it. We know that the law of Christ condemns every sin which men can commit; that it is much more thorough than the Law of Moses ever was, in this respect. Hence we know that no man has to go to the Old Institution to learn what sin is. Certainly Paul —as an apostle—did not have to go to that law to become acquainted with sin. One who was inspired would be under no such obligation. In the days of Paul, the Law of Moses was known to those to whom he addressed his epistles, and there were judaizing teachers who were trying to make them believe that they must keep that law. Hence Paul referred to it as an instrument which was known. But he nowhere taught that Christians were under obligations to keep it.

4. It is sometimes maintained that the long continuance promised to the law, precludes the possibility of its removal. Moses says that “secret things belong unto the Lord, but his revealed will belongs unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." But this forever concerns the rite of circumcision and sacri­fice as much as the Ten Commandments. And, therefore, if their application of this and kindred passages be correct, the whole institution is bound upon us. This is true in all those passages they refer to with this supposed proof in it. Nay, more, it would prove that their children would live forever. But if this expression shall be understood to mean descendants, then how do they find that the law is the common property of all the nations? The truth is, that the same, or even stronger terms are used concerning circumcision alone. It was to be a mark between God and that people forever. Does this mean that circum­cision is bound upon all people for all time? To ask the question, is to receive from everyone a negative answer.

And yet if I ask one of these men to be circumcised, he refuses. But why refuse? Was not God the author of circum­cision? I ask him to offer two rams and a bullock in order that he may be consecrated to the priesthood, but he says, no indeed. But why so? Did not God give that law? But he says that all the judiciary and ritual were done away. Where, then, is that argument? It was founded on the fact that God had given that law and, therefore, it must remain forever. But we have a large number of laws from God which he says has been done away. Since then, he knows that God may have given law to last but for a given time and to accom­plish a given purpose, the wonderful argument is gone.

But what has that to do with its perpetuity? Was not any other law uttered by Jehovah, either directly, or indirectly, of equal authority? Are the Ten Commandments, any more the law of God after they were written on tables of stone than when uttered by God from the summit of Mt. Sinai? What is there in the fact that the Decalogue was written on tables of stone by the finger of God that makes it more his law than anything else which he commanded that people?

They say that there were two laws, one from Moses and the other from God. Every time they can find the word Moses to any part of the ancient revelation, then that is of Moses, but the other refers to the Ten Commandments. Moses is the author of one of these, while the other is God’s law. They claim that the Law of Moses was done away, but the law of God remains forever. This makes Moses a better law-giver than God himself. The lawyer that tempted the Master, wished to know which was the great commandment of the law. Jesus told him that it was to love the Lord with all his heart and soul and mind, and to love his neighbor as himself. Neither of these is to be found in the Decalogue and yet they were chief. That is not all, a man might observe everyone of the ten, and not keep either one of these. Thus, in their mad haste, they will do away with the very principles which are eternal, simply to make room for a hobby about keeping a certain day !

Upon the basis which they urge, for two laws, it would be perfectly easy to find that there are two Gods. They find that there are different things said about the law, therefore there must be two laws. Just like it would be to find that because God is spoken of as our Father, and also as a fierce lion, as a man of war, therefore there must be two Gods. Christ says, I came not to judge the world. And then again he says, that God hath committed all judgment to the Son. Their logic will compel us to suppose from these statements that there are two Christs. The whole blunder comes from having a hobby which finds no other means of support than by a scrap system, that snatches texts out of their connection simply to sustain a theory. In this way any doctrine may be sustained. Any lawyer would be disbarred from the practice of law if he persisted in such a use of our statute.

I want here to make a quotation from Alexander Campbell. I do this for two reasons, (1) Mr. Campbell expresses our views very clearly, and (2) Advent preachers are in the habit of saying that Mr. Campbell knew that the seventh day was the day to keep; and toward the close of his life, indicated that it should be done. While there could be nothing more false than this, still there are many persons who are imposed upon by their statements.

I quote from Lectures on the Pentateuch, p. 271, 272:

"There remains another objection to this division of the law. It sets itself in opposition to the skill of an apostle, and ulti­mately deters us from speaking of the ten precepts as he did. Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, denominated the ten precepts, the ministration of condemnation and of death. 2Co 3:7; 2Co 3:14. This we call the moral law. Whether he or we are to be esteemed the most able ministers of Christ, it remains for you, my friends, to say. Paul, having called the ten precepts the ministration of death, next affirmed that it was to be done away,’ and that it `was done away.’ Now, the calling the ten precepts ’ the moral law,’ is not only a violation of the use of the word; is not only inconsistent in itself, and contra­dictory to truth; but greatly obscures the doctrine taught by the apostle in 2Co 3:1-18, and in similar passages, so as to render it almost, if not altogether, unin­telligible to us. "

I quote again from page 286:

“’ Sin,’ says the apostle, ’shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.’ In the sixth and seventh chapters to the Romans, the apostle taught them that they were not under the law but under grace; that they were freed from it—’ dead to it ’— ’ delivered from it.’ In the eighth chapter, first verse, he draws the above conclusion. What a pity that modern teachers should have added to, and clogged the words of inspiration by such unauthorized sentences as the following: ’ Ye are not under the law as a covenant of works, but as a rule of life.’ Whoever read one word of ’ the covenant of works’ in the Bible, or of the Jewish law being a rule of life to the disciples of Christ? Of these you hear no more from the Bible than of the ’ Solemn League’ or of ’ St. Giles’ day.’ "

Again, from page 288:

“But query: Is the Law of Moses a rule of life to Christians? An advocate of the popular doctrine replies, Not all of it.’ Query again: ’What part of it? ‘The Ten Commandments.’ Are these a rule of life to Christians? ’Yes.’ Should not, then, Christians sanctify the seventh day? `No.’ Why so? ’Because Christ has not enjoined it.’ Oh then, the law, or Ten Commandments, is not a rule of life to Christians any further than it is enjoined by Christ; so that in reading the precepts in Moses’ words, or hearing him utter them, does not oblige us to observe them—it is only what Christ says we must observe. So that an advocate for the popular doc­trine, when closely pressed, cannot maintain his ground."

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that a part of the law was left binding, as a law, while the rest of it was taken away. Their division of it is purely fanciful. The Bible knows nothing about it. Jesus treated the Ten Commandments just as he did the rest of the law; it had served its purpose as a consti­tution of a national religion. The government which was built upon it was both political and religious. And as a whole sys­tem, the law had served its purpose in preparing the people for the higher lessons of the Great Teacher.

7. But they sometimes ask, why would God take away the Ten Commandments in order to get rid of one? Why not blot out the one and leave the other nine standing?

Whatever may be the impression such a question may make on the mind of a Bible reader, we must treat it gravely, for they all ask it, supposing evidently that it has some element of strength. Again we might ask if God removed all the law but the Ten Commandments? To which they are bound to answer yes. We ask again if many of the things now in the Christian Institution, were not in the Law of Moses? Again they say yes. Then why were these things taken away? Why were they not left standing, seeing they must be in the New Covenant as well as in the Old? From this it will appear that they are just as much in need of showing why God has first removed and then re-enacted as we are. Here is the simple truth in the premises God has taught men as they have been capable of receiving instruction. He has also made requirements of them as they had more light and more responsibility. Many things in the Patriarchal system was put into Judaism. That fact, however, did not leave the Jew under the Patriarchal religion, nor under any part of it as having appeared there. He gave them a new law. Yet not new in all its forms and principles; and yet they were bound only to observe these things because they were in the Law of Moses, and not because they had been given to the Patriarchs. So it was in the establishment of the covenant of Christ, God gave a law as perfectly new, as if there had never been a law given since the foundation of the world. But in this law of faith, this perfect law of liberty, it pleased him to give us many things which had been in the Patriarchal and Jewish systems, and they are now binding upon us, not because they were there, but because they are here; not because they were of the fathers or of Moses, but because they are of Christ.

Before our states came into the union as states, they had forms of territorial government. When they were admitted as states, they came in with a constitution on which could be based a code for the government of the people. In that code there have been many things which had previously been in the terri­torial code. And yet the law is as wholly independent of the territorial law as if no such law had ever existed. So it was with the Law of Moses, it served its purpose, and passed away, to make room for a universal religion. As Paul says: “He took away the first that he might establish the second."—Heb 10:9.

8. An eighth argument by the friends of the Sabbath is that the Decalogue was declared by the Lord to be perfect, and that God said of the rest of the law that it was not good. In the first place, God never said that the Decalogue was per­fect. It is said of the Law of the Lord, that it was perfect, con­verting the soul (Psa 19:7). But it would be the law of love, not found in the Decalogue, that would convert the soul. As to the perfection of that law, Jesus shows very clearly that it was not. He added to it in the very things which he retained. It was perfect, however, for the work which it was to perform. It was only given as a pedagogue to lead that people during the days of their minority.

We should not be surprised to hear an infidel quote Eze 20:25, to prove that God had purposely injured his people whom he had pledged himself to protect and save. But when any class of professed believers make the same use of it, we are ready to ask: “Where is thy faith? “But I will quote the text:

"I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they had not executed my judg­ments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my sab­baths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."—Eze 20:23-26. Of course this law can have nothing to do with the law given at Mt. Sinai, for it was after that they had violated the very law that was there given. Indeed it was after that they had intro­duced those gross forms of idolatry, such as burning their chil­dren, in the service of their heathen deities. It was many years after they had come into the Promised Land that they did such things as are here named. Hence it follows that God ’simply permitted them to receive the reward of their own doings that they might learn the results. And through the nations to which he permitted them to be sold in bondage, they received those laws which were not good. In this again is seen the usual weakness of the system which compels its defenders into the work of scrapping the Scriptures and using the word of God for its sound and not for its sense.