No.5. The Ten Commandments.
It would seem strange if God had not given certain explicit indications of His will to His ancient People who were under tutelage. These indications we find in the Law. For our purposes perhaps we may place the covenantal Law under three division: the ceremonial or ritual, the dietary and the Ten Commandments. As to the ceremonial or ritual, clearly this has been fulfilled in Christ and was obviously a shadow of that which was to come. The dietary may be considered outside the scope of this study as being a subject which is seldom, if ever, raised as a point of dispute. There remains, however, the Ten Commandments.
There are those believers who are convinced that the Ten Commandments are as obligatory today as they were for those to whom they were first given, while on the other hand there are those who are firmly convinced that the obligations of the Ten Commandments were included in the ‘handwriting of ordinances that was against us’ and which Christ took ‘out of the way, nailing it to His cross’ (Col. ii. 14). It is by no means a question of unimportance to the members of the Church which is Christ’s Body: are we under obligation to observe the Ten Commandments?
We will seek to deal with this question in two ways: (1) what, if anything, is said in the prison epistles in connection with the Commandments and (2) the ‘lawful’ use of the Law.
The first Commandment states: “I am the Lord thy God . . . . . Thou shalt have no other gods before my face” (Exod. xx. 2, 3, see The Companion Bible note). What is here enjoined is stated as a fact by Paul in Eph. iv. 6 “There is . . . . . One God and Father of
all”. No member of the Body of Christ is likely to dispute this, nor claim the liberty to have any other god. So the will of God concerning the relationship existing between Himself and His people of all dispensations is made plain: There is one God.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image” says the second Commandment, ‘or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth’. Paul, however, takes the standard higher in his statement “No . . . . . covetous man, who is an idolater hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Eph. v. 5, cf. Col. iii. 5). To covet anything is to make of it a god, an idol. Perhaps here is an instance where we need to exercise particular care due to the influence of the materialistic society in which we live.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Among those things ‘which are upon the earth’ and are to be mortified (Col. iii. 5, 8) Paul include ‘blasphemy’. This he tells Timothy is one of the marks of the last days (II Tim. iii. 1, 2), pointing out that ‘men shall be lovers of their own selves . . . . . lovers of pleasures more lovers of God’ (verses 2, 4). In such a situation the name of God and all things holy are unlikely to be held in reverence. Nor, would we think, even allowing for the influence of the ungodly society around us, would any member of Christ’s Body wish to speak lightly, or without reverence, of God.
Of all the Ten Commandments, the fourth is the one which is most in dispute so far as members of the One Body are concerned. But there are certain points to be noted: the fourth Commandment is as much (perhaps more) a command to ‘labour six days’, a point worth noting at the present time when the working week grows gradually shorter and even nominal acknowledgment of God grows less. In the second place the emphasis is upon remembering the sabbath day to keep it holy. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hollowed it.” The sabbath, as such, is then first an ordinance of creation and then, following six days of labour, a welcome opportunity for man to rest from his labours, as God did from His. Dr. E. W. Bullinger’s comments in Number in Scriptures are of interest here (p.9):
“Moreover, man appears to be made on what we may call the seven-day principle. In various diseases the seventh, fourteenth, and twenty-first are critical days; and in others seven or 14 half-days. Man’s pulse beats on the seven day principle, for Dr. Stratton points out that for six days out of seven it beats faster in the morning than in the evening, while on the seventh day it beats slower. Thus the number seven is stamped upon physiology, and he is thus admonished, as man, to rest one day in seven. He cannot violate this law with impunity, for it is interwoven with his very being.”
Man therefore, being made on ‘the seven day principle’, it is hardly surprising to find that the People of God were enjoined in this covenant relationship with God ‘to remember the sabbath day’ following six days of labour.
But what should be our attitude to the ‘sabbath’? Paul makes but one reference to it in the prison epistles, Col. ii. 16, “Let no man judge you . . . . . in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days”. The matters of which he has been speaking are, he says, ‘a shadow of things to come; but the body (or substance) is of Christ’. :Let no man judge you”; but precisely what does Paul mean by this? The primary significance of ‘judge’ (krino) is ‘to separate, divide, put apart: hence to pick out’. “Let no man pick you out . . . . . in respect of an holy day, etc.” The principalities and powers, who, it would seem, had some jurisdiction or authority in these matters have been ‘spoiled’. Indeed the inference suggests that prior to the triumph of the cross, these principalities and powers clung to Christ Himself in an adverse way; these He ‘stripped off’ as a garment, divesting Himself of their influence. Having done this, He displayed them freely, revealing them for the ‘weak and beggarly’ things they are and showing that the areas in which they had held sway were mere shadows of the reality to be found in Himself (Col. ii. 15). Let no man ‘pick you out’ in respect of shadows.
A few verses later (Col. ii. 20) Paul questions their subjection to ordinances, according to the precepts and teachings of men. This, surely, is the crux of the matter. It is wrong for the believer to be subject to the opinions of men, and unthinkingly to adopt a course of action or a way of life, simply because other people, albeit other Christians, ‘lay down the law’ on the matter. There is the danger that members of Christ’s Body may err by going from the extreme of “thou shalt not” to “thou shalt” and vice versa, thereby equally becoming ‘subject to ordinances according to the precepts and teachings of men’. We are free ‘with the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free’; free to do the will of God. We are freed from the bondage of the sabbath law, or the first day of the week: the fact that there is the possibility of choice on this point indicates the bondage has been removed.
But what should be our attitude to ‘Sunday observance’? We have already seen that ‘man appears to be made on what we may call the seven day principle’, and thus needs, physically one day’s rest in seven: is it not equally true that he may need a similar opportunity for his spirit? C. H. Welch has this to say (Just and the Justifier, p.316):
“While the believer today may not be in danger of judging or despising so far as ‘meats’ are concerned, there are many who adopt the attitude here condemned (Rom.xiv.) regarding the observance of the so-called ‘Lord's Day’. Those of us who are free from the tradition concerning the observance of either the Sabbath or the First Day of the Week, should remember that we are called upon to respect the consciences of those who, though ‘weak’, ‘regard the day unto the Lord’. It is not the first part of this sentence that matters, it is the second part: ‘unto the Lord’.”
Following his discourse on the question of meats and the observance of ‘days’ in Rom. xiv., Paul continues in chapter xv. thus:
“We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself . . . . .”.
Again in Volume XI, p.27, of The Berean Expositor, C.H.W. says:
“We are bound to observe no day in particular (this does not give license to outrage other believers’ feelings concerning Sunday) but gladly seek to walk worthy before the Lord and our fellows.”
We have dealt at some length with the Fourth Commandment because we believe this to be an issue of particular relevance in the days in which we live. The way in which we treat Sunday can have a great influence upon our witness as believers.
Passing on, then, to the Fifth Commandment: “Honour thy father and thy mother”, we find the Apostle Paul makes specific reference to this in Eph. vi. 1-3 and Col. iii. 20 and it is worth noting his comment in the former: “which is the first commandment with promise”. So also the comment in Col. iii. 20 should be noted: “for this is well pleasing unto the Lord”. Here at least is a commandment which should be taken as an indication of what is ‘well pleasing unto the Lord’, and hence of His will for His people.
While it is true there is no specific mention of murder in the prison epistles, bearing in mind that the Lord Jesus Christ said:
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not kill . . . . . But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment . . . . .” (Matt. v. 21-22).
Eph. iv. 26, 31 and Col. iii. 8 make it clear that wrath and anger, the root of murder, have no place in the life of the member of Christ’s Body.
So it is with theft: “Let him that stole steal no more” (Eph. iv. 28). Similarly with false witness, Eph. iv. 25 exhorts the putting away of lying and the speaking of truth every man with his neighbour. Covetousness is doubly condemned both as covetousness and idolatry.
Clearly and logically, nine of the Ten Words will be fulfilled by members of the Church which is Christ’s Body. This being the case is there any good reason why the Fourth should be an exception?
However, why should we be bound by any of the Ten Commandments when Christ has made us free from the Law? In writing his first letter to Timothy Paul gives us the answer, Chapter i. 8-11:
“But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine . . . . .”.
So then the law is not for the ‘righteous’ man, but rather for the ‘unrighteous’. The principle is laid down in Rom. iii. 31:
“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”
That is to say, we are no longer subject to the law, nonetheless our conduct does not make the law pointless; rather it gives point to the law, for those for whom it is intended, i.e., ‘the lawless’, etc.
Perhaps we can make the difference clearer by referring to Gal. iv. 1-7. Before the ‘redemption’ which is in Christ Jesus we were infants (better than ‘child’ as in A.V.), but since “God sent forth His Son . . . . . to redeem them that were under the Law”, we have received ‘the adoption of sons’, and are no more servants, but heirs. “The law was our schoolmaster” (Gal. iii. 24). It is the difference between the immaturity of the infant and the responsibility of the mature son; the latter can be relied upon to conduct himself properly without the need for the discipline of the law. The reason for the existence of laws in our own society is often the irresponsibility of many people. For example, the responsible driver would naturally slow down when traveling through a built up area, but there were many who did not do so, with the result that a law had to be drawn up restricting the liberty of the ‘lawless’. This law was not given for the law-abiding, but for the law-breaker. Thus those who are ‘in Christ’, are not subject to the law, but this does not give them license to break the law, nor does it mean that they will do so, for by so doing they number themselves among those for whom it was given!
What believer is there who willfully breaks the Ten Commandments? Do we know of any believer who has another god as well as God or who worships a ‘graven image’, who claims the right to commit adultery or bear false witness? Why then should there be any who turn from the privilege afforded by our society for one day’s rest in seven: an opportunity to turn from the specific claims of daily living for worship, meditation on the Word of God, fellowship with other believers, an opportunity for a ‘day of rest and gladness’? We are not subject to such a day, we are not obliged to observe one day above another, nor in our observance of it do we hedge it about with all sorts of pettifogging restrictions. But as nine of the Ten Commandments are clearly the expression of God’s desire for us, why should the one (the fourth) not be also His desire for us?
It seems clear then that in the Ten Commandments we have laid down for us the basic principles of the Will of God for us and that, while we may not be ‘under the law’, the members of Christ’s Body will delight to do His will with the psalmist of old. For it was for this reason:
“He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children (better: placing as sons) by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace wherein He hath made us accepted in the beloved” (Eph. i. 4-6).
God has placed us as sons in Christ that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love to the praise of the glory of His grace.
--------------------
-----------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment