The Father’s Commandments vs. The Son’s

Objection:

Through Moses, God gave commandments to His people. Fifteen hundred years later, Christ also gave commandments. You fail to distinguish between God’s law, which was abolished at Calvary, and Christ’s commandments that bind the Christian. Hence you mistakenly contend that the Ten Commandments and Christ’s commandments are the same and equally binding.

Answer:

Here is a new and rather breathtaking argument: It is a mark of legalism to keep the Father’s commandments, but a mark of grace to keep the Son’s! The substance of most of the contentions against the law that we have had to consider is this: The Christian has nothing to do with the law, meaning the ten-commandment law. We are now informed that the Christian has much to do with law; in fact, he must obey many commandments, for a number of references are given to prove that Christ set forth a list of new commandments.

The references are primarily from the record of Christ’s sermon on the mount, beginning with Matthew 5:29. The reader, of course, is familiar with Christ’s commands in this notable sermon. We need not enumerate them here. Suffice it to summarize them by saying that they deal with various human relationships and are an exposition of what we call the golden rule. In fact, the golden rule is given as a kind of climax to this sermon. (See Matthew 7:12). And strangely enough, this reference is given, among others, to prove that Christ set up a new code of laws to supersede those given by God the Father in an earlier era. But let us read the text:

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12).

Christ emphatically declares that the golden rule is the epitome of the “law and the prophets.” As stated, His various commands in this sermon on the mount are summarized in the golden rule. Hence, His allegedly new commands are simply an exposition of the “law and the prophets.” This understanding of the matter is in harmony with the classic Protestant view of the Scriptures, namely, that the New Testament is infolded in the Old and the Old Testament is unfolded in the New. (See the discussion on this point under our answer to the objection “You Quote Too Much From The Old Testament.”)

That Christ was indeed commenting upon and expanding very specifically God’s ten-commandment law is evident in various references the objector gave as proof that Christ set up new commandments to supplant those of His Father. Take this reference: “And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.” (Luke 12:15).

Many of the allegedly new commands of Christ are most evidently an expansion of this tenth precept of the Ten Commandments.

Or take this reference, which the objector does not give for some reason: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matthew 5:27-28). Is Christ here freeing us from the seventh precept of God’s ten-commandment law and setting up a new law? The idea would be blasphemous. Instead, He is showing how broad is the import of that command.

Christ did not set aside God’s law; instead, He magnified it. And this is what the prophet Isaiah foretold of Him: “The LORD is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.” (Isaiah 42:21). The well-known Pulpit Commentary observes on this text:

“The Lord is well pleased; rather, the Lord was pleased, or it pleased the Lord. For his righteousness’ sake; “because of his own perfect righteousness.” He will magnify the Law; rather, to magnify the Law—to set it forth in its greatness and its glory before his people. It is not the original giving of the Law at Sinai only that is meant, but also its constant inculcation by a long series of prophets. Israel’s experience (verse 29) had included all this; but they had not profited by the instruction addressed to them.”

Pulpit Commentary

We have looked in vain, among the references offered by the objector as proof that Christ gave commandments to supersede the law of God, for the words of our Lord to the rich young ruler, who had asked what he should do to “have eternal life”: “if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matthew 19:16,17). And did Christ here set forth a new set of commandments? Indeed there was the time to do it, for the eternal life of a human soul was at stake. But when the young man asked Christ to be specific as to “which” commandment, our Lord recited a number of the commands found in the Ten Commandments and ended with the summarizing command: “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And this last command, be it noted, is not new; it is quoted from Leviticus 19:18. What further evidence needs to be offered than that to prove that no new commandment from Christ was necessary for salvation?

That passage also proves that apparently new commandments from Christ are an amplification of principles set down in the commands God gave long before. When the young man declared that he had kept all these commands from his youth, he inquired, “What lack I yet?” Christ told him to sell all he had, give to the poor, and “follow me.” This command to sell was simply an exposition of the tenth precept of the Ten Commandments and a commentary on Luke 12:15. And would anyone think of contending that the command, “Follow me,” meant that the youth should turn his back on God’s holy law?

We have Christ’s own words, expressed over and over, that He did not come to set up new laws but only to set forth what had been given unto Him of His Father. Note these typical references that the objector failed to include in his presentation:

“For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” (John 12:49-50).

“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.” (John 14:24). (See also John 7:16; 8:28). These passages harmonize perfectly with Christ’s declaration: ‘I and my Father are one.” (John 10:30).

They also dispose of the claim that the apostles set new commandments that took the place of the law of God. Would the apostles do something that even Christ would not do? When Christ sent forth His disciples on the great task of carrying the gospel to all men, He declared that they were to teach men “to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:20). And Christ declared, “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (John 12:49).

That the Father and Son are united in this matter of commandments is further revealed by the fact that Christ was present when the Israelites were in the wilderness, where they received the ten-commandment law. (See Nehemiah 9:11-15 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

There are not three lawgivers–the Father, the Son, and the apostles, but one only. That is what these texts teach. They agree perfectly with the words of James: “There is one lawgiver.” (James 4:12).

Need we no longer keep God’s commandments but only Christ’s? The texts before us give a clear answer. For good measure, let us add two more. The saints of God in the last days of earth’s history are thus twice described:

1. “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Revelation 12:17).
2. “Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” (Revelation 14:12).

In fact, the Bible knows of only two classes of people–those who keep God’s law and those who don’t. Those described as “saints” (Revelation 14:12) are subject to His law. Those who are not are described by Paul: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7).