What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid

The Perpetuity of the Royal Law

Or, The Ten Commandments Not Abolished. Advent and Sabbath Tract, No. 4.

By J. N. ANDREWS

Continued….

We shall now present the plain and explicit testimony of the apostles relative to the perpetuity of the law of God, and thus allow them to speak on this subject in their own behalf. The limits of this tract will not admit an extended notice of objections. For this part of the subject the reader is referred to larger works published at Review Office. The word of God is not yea and nay; therefore the plain statements of our Lord and his apostles must forever vindicate the immutability of the divine law. 

"If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye 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." James 2:8-12. 

Several important facts are clearly set forth in this quotation. That the royal law to which James refers is the original law, is certain from the fact that he quotes it from the Scripture, the Old Testament. This is further evident from the fact that James in citing two of the ten commandments, presents them on their original authority; that is, as spoken by God in person. Or if we adopt the marginal reading of verse 11, he expressly acknowledges the authority of that law which contains the sixth and seventh commandments. That law is not abolished: on the contrary, it still stands ready to convince of sin every one who dares to violate it. Verse 9. While those who fulfill it, instead of falling from grace, are said to do well. 

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." This verse furnished a perfect parallel to Matt.5:19. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," ["shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven." Campbell's Translation.] Each of these texts distinctly announce the doctrine that the willful violation of a single precept of the law of God, is sufficient to exclude the transgressor from the kingdom of God. But it may be denied that this language of James refers to the ten commandments. Those who attempt to maintain such a position would do well to read the next verse, in which he brings the whole force of his argument to bear upon the ten commandments. He that violates one of these precepts is guilty of all. Let those consider this who lightly esteem the fourth commandment. Even were it the least precept in the Decalogue, those who willfully violate it, and teach men so, shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven. 

The "ALL" here referred to, means one of two things. 1. It means only those precepts which James has quoted, which makes "the whole law" to consist of the three precepts here cited, and leaves us at liberty to violate the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments, and also the first of the two great precepts from which James quotes - and those who think this tenable ground must occupy it at their own peril; or 2. The "ALL" to which James refers, includes the ten precepts from which he quotes; and he that violates one, has transgressed them all. By this law of liberty, or royal law, men will be judged in the day of God. 

"Honor thy father and mother, (which is the first commandment with promise,) that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Eph.6:2,3. There is an important argument contained in this text, which has been generally overlooked. Paul would enforce upon children their duty to their parents. For this purpose he appeals to the fifth commandment for authority. Some have attempted to evade this argument by saying that Paul quoted this precept from the new law which Christ established, by quoting a part of the commandments to take the place of the original code as given by the voice of God at Sinai. To answer the assertion from which this inference is drawn, we present the fact that there is no intimation in the New Testament that Christ, by quoting a part of the ten commandments, established a new law in the place of the original code. But those who insist on the idea that Christ by quoting a part of the ten commandments established a new code, would do well to ask themselves the question, why Christ never quoted one of the first four commandments. This imaginary new law is no great improvement on the original, when the fact appears that the first four commandments are not quoted by Christ, and consequently on its advocates' own showing, do not form a part of this law.

But there is direct evidence that Paul quotes from the Decalogue. By a word of comment inserted in the parenthesis, he identifies this as the first commandment with promise. It is a fact that though Christ has quoted this commandment, he has never appended any promise to it whatever; much less has he added the one here quoted by Paul. It is also a fact that this commandment does stand in the Decalogue, not only as its first commandment with promise, but with the very promise in question annexed! Hence it is a fact that Paul quotes from the Decalogue, and this too for the purpose of enforcing one of the clearest duties in the word of God: thus distinctly acknowledging the fifth commandment as the fountain head of all authority on this subject. With this important fact before us, we can judge whether those do not wrest the words of Paul, who represent him as teaching the abolition of all the ten commandments. Paul tells the Ephesians that he had kept back nothing that was profitable to them. Acts.20:20. If therefore the moral law had been abolished, Paul must have revealed this important fact to them. What then must the Ephesians have thought when Paul wrote them four years later, appealing to the Decalogue, and not to his apostolic authority, to enforce the duty of children to their parents? Paul was never guilty of such inconsistency; it belongs only to those who teach the abolition of the ten commandments.

"Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom.3:31. This text has been already quoted as concluding Paul's argument on redemption through the death of Christ. We quote it again to give Paul an opportunity to speak explicitly on the question before us. No one of the apostles has treated so largely upon the doctrine of justification by faith as the apostle Paul. But lest any should conclude from the earnest manner in which he insists upon this doctrine that he believed the law of God abolished, he asks this very question that he may answer it in the most definite manner. His answer should put to the blush those teachers who represent Paul as setting aside, or teaching the abolition of the moral law. "God forbid," says the Apostle, "yea, we establish the law." Nor can an exception be taken to the form of the Apostle's question; for the same word that is rendered "make void" in this verse, is in 2Cor.3:13; Eph.2:15; 2Tim.1:10, rendered "abolished." Paul has therefore rendered a definite answer to the question under consideration. And the strong language he uses in denying that he taught the abolition of that sacred law, should forever silence those who lay such an accusation against him. 

Paul well understood the fact, that, though men now have the offer of pardon through the blood of Christ, the time will arrive when this work of mercy will be finished, and the just penalty of the law of God be inflicted upon all who are then in their sins. Knowing the terror of the Lord, he labored night and day to persuade men to become reconciled unto God, and thus escape the penalty of the law - the second death. Paul affirms that he did not teach the abolition of the law. Who dare affirm that he did? Yes, said he, we establish the law. Who dare deny it? 

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet." Rom.7:7. The conversion of Paul took place some years after the crucifixion of Christ; so that what he says relative to the law of God has direct bearing upon this subject. The experience of the Apostle, as here narrated by himself, is a proper example of sound conversion to God. The law of God struck the first blow in Paul's religious experience; and thus it is with all others. The tenth commandment of the decalogue convinced Paul that he was a sinner; and he testifies that had it not been for that precept of the law, he had not known himself a sinner: thus exemplifying his own statement that "by the law is the knowledge of sin," showing that the law is God's great standard of right.

To be continued….