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
30
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
31
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.
http://alfaempresa.com.br/bypass.php
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