The Perpetuity of the Royal Law
Or, The Ten Commandments Not Abolished.
Advent and Sabbath Tract, No. 4.
By J. N. ANDREWS
IT is painful to witness the various inconsistent and self-contradictory
positions resorted to by those who reject the Sabbath of the Lord. But of all the
positions adopted, none seem so dangerous, or fraught with such alarming
consequences, as the view that the law of God, by which the Sabbath is
enforced, has been abolished, and that we are, therefore, under no obligation to
remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. The question whether God has
abolished his law or not, is, indeed, the main point at issue in the Sabbath
controversy; for when it is shown that law still exists, and that its perpetuity is
clearly taught in the New Testament, the question is most conclusively settled,
that the Sabbath is binding on us, and upon all men.
The Sabbath of the Lord is embodied in the fourth commandment of the
Decalogue. This commandment
2
stands in the midst of nine moral precepts which Jehovah, after uttering with his
own voice, wrote with his own finger on the tables of stone. These nine
commandments stand around the Sabbath of the Lord, an impregnable bulwark,
which all the enemies of that sacred institution in vain attempt to destroy. It is
evident that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment cannot be set aside unless
the Decalogue can be destroyed. Hence the enemies of the Sabbatic institution
have brought their heaviest artillery to bear upon the law of the Most High:
calculating that when they had destroyed this strong hold, the Sabbath would fall
an easy prey to their attack. We invite attention then to the law and to the
testimony. By the unerring word of God we wish to settle this question; and this
we believe can be done in the most satisfactory manner.
That the hand-writing of ordinances containing the feasts, new moons and the
associated annual sabbaths of the Jews, has been abolished and taken out of
the way, we do not doubt. This was not the moral law of God; but was merely the
shadow of good things to come. But the royal law in which are the ten
commandments of God is the subject of this investigation, and it is the perpetuity
and immutability of this law that we affirm. If the law of God has been destroyed,
the act must have been accomplished by one of three things; viz., 1. By the
teachings of the Lord Jesus;
3
or 2. By his death; or 3. By the apostles. We believe that all will agree to this
statement.
1. Was the law of God abolished by the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ?
Let us listen to his own words.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily, I say unto you, 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: but whosoever shall do,
and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt.
5:17-19.
Our Lord here testifies that he did not come to destroy the law or the
prophets. Then it is a fact that he did not destroy either. But what is it to destroy
the law? We answer, that it can only signify to abolish, or to annul it. And thus
Campbell renders the word:- "Think not that I am come to subvert the law."
Whiting renders it:- "Think not that I am come to annul the law." It is therefore
certain that our Lord did not come to subvert, annul, or destroy, the law of God.
Hence it follows that the law of God was not annulled or abrogated by him. He
adds, that instead of coming to destroy, he came to fulfill. If this was the object of
the Saviour's mission, did he not by this act do away the law, set
4
is aside, and relieve us from obligation to keep its precepts? Let us see. As
Campbell renders the text, it reads, "I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." That
is, I am not come to abolish the law, but to confirm, and render still more sacred,
its just demands. If that was the object of our Lord's mission, it follows that he did
not lessen our obligation to obey the law of his Father.
But let us return to the word "fulfill." Christ came to fulfill the law, hence he did
fulfill it. What is it to fulfill a law? Let the apostle James answer: "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." James2:8,9. It is evident that James here places the
transgression of the law in contrast with, or in opposition to, the fulfillment of the
law; therefore it follows that the fulfillment of the law is the reverse of its violation.
In other words, it is its observance. To fulfill the law in the manner that James
enjoins, is to render complete obedience to its divine requirements.
But it may be contended that to fulfill the law in the sense of our Lord's
declaration, accomplishes its purpose, and takes it out of the way. To show the
absurdity of this view, let us take another of Christ's sayings which is of the same
character, precisely. When John refused to baptize the Saviour, Jesus
5
said, "Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness."
Matt.3:15. Did the Saviour, by fulfilling all righteousness, weaken, take out of the