There Are Only Nine Binding Commandments

Objection:

Though the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, nine of them were reenacted in the New Testament and thus are binding on Christians, but the fourth command was not; hence we are not obligated to keep it.

Answer:

Two fallacies underlie this reasoning:

1. People often speak of the Old Testament in the same breath as the old covenant and the New Testament in the same breath as the new covenant. The almost unconscious effect upon both speaker and hearer minimizes the Old Testament to the point of considering it nonessential and superseded by the New. And if there is coupled with the view that the Ten Commandments are the old covenant, the way is paved for the kind of reasoning outlined in the objection now before us. But we have already shown (see CHRISTIANS ARE TO HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TEN COMMANDMENTS—THE OLD COVENANT) that the Ten Commandments are not the old covenant and that the New Testament in no way supersedes the Old (see YOU QUOTE TOO MUCH FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT). When we clearly remember that both the Old and the New Testament are our inspired guides, much of the force of this objection disappears.
2. The claim is that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, but as already noted (see THE PRINCIPLES REMAIN, BUT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ARE GONE—SO IS THE SABBATH, and THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT IS NOT INHERENTLY A MORAL PRECEPT) those who make this claim admit that nine of the ten commands state eternal moral principles or laws. The objector, therefore, finds himself in the curious position of declaring that eternal things can be abolished. At least, this is the point to which his reasoning leads him. Does he hesitate to admit this? Then we would ask him: How can you abolish the ten-commandment law unless you abolish the ten precepts that constitute it? As the objector himself realizes, there is only one answer to this question, for he speaks of the reenactment of nine of the ten commandments. His dilemma is this: He must abolish the Ten Commandments to do away with the Sabbath command, which is at the heart of it. But repealing the Ten Commandments creates moral chaos, so he must promptly reenact nine of its precepts. That necessitates the stunning conclusion that eternal moral principles, or laws, were abolished and then, equally incredible, reenacted.

Now there are two things to remember about these eternal moral laws that constitute the nine commands:

1. They cover virtually the whole range of moral conduct.
2. Because they are eternal moral principles, they are an expression of the very nature of God Himself, as Christian theologians have ever held, and govern all moral beings in the universe.

In light of these undebatable facts, the claim that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross takes on a monstrous, even sacrilegious, quality. When Christ died on the cross, was God’s moral nature changed? It is sacrilege to ask the question. But so long as God is unchanged, the moral principles radiating from His character remain intact. So long as God’s nature abhors lying, stealing, killing, adultery, covetousness, false gods, etc., so long will the universe to its farthest corners be controlled by moral laws against these evil deeds. But we are told that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, which, if words mean anything, means that the prohibitions of that holy code, the “Thou shall not’s,” have disappeared. Now, either these precepts were annulled, or they were not. There is no middle ground. For example, either the sixth command, which prohibits murder, was abolished or it was not. And so with the other commands.

The objector hopes to avert the appalling conclusions that inevitably flow from the logic of his position by hurrying out for inspection his reenactment theory. The casual onlooker may feel that all is well, for does not the reenactment thus preserve the continuity of moral law in the universe? Yes, if we might think of the reenactment as we would think of the changing of gears in an automobile traveling the highway. But to make this kind of comparison violates both language and history. With forward motion continuing, the idea of gear shifting has nothing in common with the thought of abolishment. Furthermore, the figure of gear shifting implies essentially no tinier interval in the transition. But this point of time interval brings to light the most incredible feature of this whole re-enactment theory.

The apostles, from whose New Testament writings certain lines are quoted to prove the reenactment of nine of the ten commands, only penned their inspired manuscripts twenty, thirty, forty, and more years after the cross! This simple historical fact leads to the fantastic conclusion that the whole world, if not the entire universe, was free from the great moral laws for that amount of time. For example, when we ask the objector if he believes it proper to kill, steal, lie, et cetera, seeing that the Ten Commandments were abolished, he replies no and informs us that the New Testament has reenacted laws against these. Then he will quote Romans 13:9, where the explicit prohibition of these crimes is undoubtedly found. But there is general agreement that Paul wrote Romans about the year A.D. 58. What about the time between that year and the year of the crucifixion?

But a further dilemma confronts those who present the reenactment theory. They seem hard-pressed to find in the New Testament explicit restatements of all the nine commands. So they draw partly from Christ’s words in the four Gospels. But those words were uttered before His crucifixion! We cannot speak of reenacting a law before it is abolished. Nor can the objector consistently contend at one time that the cross marks the dividing point between the old and the new, with all things becoming new at the resurrection, and at another time offer Christ’s words before His crucifixion as exhibits of the new, reenacted law.

Nor is this all the perplexity that confronts those who set forth this reenactment theory. They cannot find in the New Testament a clear and sufficiently detailed restatement of the second commandment. We must turn to the words of the Ten Commandments if we, as Protestants, are to bring a wholly convincing indictment against Rome for the images in Catholic churches.

That is strange, indeed, if the reenacted law should be wholly adequate for every situation in the Christian Era! Will the objector have the hardihood to affirm that the great God, in writing out the words of the second commandment, was needlessly detailed, or that, in inspiring New Testament writers, He failed to have them be as specific as is needed? Either conclusion would be sacrilegious. We need accept neither.

As earlier outlined in the discussion on the equal authority of the Old and the New Testament (see YOU QUOTE TOO MUCH FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT), the New Testament writers give no suggestion that they are enacting a new code or giving us a new revelation in the sense of superseding a former revelation in any area of our spiritual life. They quote many passages from the Old Testament to illustrate what they are presenting, sometimes from the Ten Commandments. At times the quotations are brief; at other times, they are more extended. That explains why the precepts of the Ten Commandments are not generally found in the same form or so detailed as in the Old Testament. Why should they need to repeat verbatim? They constantly referred their readers to the Scriptures, which at that time meant the Old Testament, and in the Old Testament could be found the more detailed and explicit statement of the precept to which the apostle referred.

In light of these facts, there is no point in the contention that the fourth command is not reenacted in the New Testament.

But to remove the last shadow of plausibility from the objection, let it be said in conclusion that the New Testament is not silent regarding the fourth command. On the contrary, the references to it are as plentiful as to any other commandment. Note the following:

1. Our Lord declared, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. In writing down these words of our Lord years after the cross, Mark felt no need to qualify His words with the comment that the Sabbath was made for man only until the cross. In the absence of that comment, what would Mark’s readers naturally deduce from that statement by Christ? Our Lord’s words still stand, and the Sabbath remains. Yes, the writers of the New Testament were silent at times regarding the Sabbath, but not the kind of silence to which the objector refers.
2. Matthew records what Christ said about certain things being lawful on the Sabbath day (Matthew 12:12). Now, if the Sabbath was abolished at the cross, how vital that Matthew should add a comment immediately to explain to the early Christians who might read his writings in some far corner of the world, that the whole discussion of the lawfulness of this or that on the Sabbath day is merely a bit of history, for the Sabbath law was abolished shortly after Christ made His statement! In the absence of that comment, Matthew’s readers would naturally conclude that they should be careful to see that they followed Christ’s counsel on the matter of the Sabbath.
3. When Christ described to His disciples the destruction that was to come on Jerusalem and told them that they were to flee when the Roman armies drew near, He added, “But pray you that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day.” Matthew 24:20. The destruction occurred in A.D. 70. For almost forty years, they were to pray that they might be spared fleeing on the Sabbath. But what point would there be in this if the Sabbath was abolished at the cross? The force of this question is so great that some have sought to weaken it by declaring that Jerusalem’s gates would be shut on the Sabbath. But Christ, who knew all the future, knew that in A.D. 70 the Jews would go out to battle the Romans on the Sabbath. (See Josephus, Jewish Wars, book 2, chap. 19). Further, the command to flee is addressed to “them which be in Judea.” (Matthew 24:16). Walls and gates did not surround Judea. Yet they in Judea were to pray that their flight should not be on the Sabbath day! Could evidence be more apparent that Christ viewed the Sabbath day differently from other days?

When we read Christ’s counsel to His disciples to pray regarding the Sabbath, and when we couple with that His words regarding certain things being lawful on the Sabbath, with both statements being recorded by Matthew decades after the Christian Era had begun, should we not conclude that the Sabbath law is binding for Christians? Matthew says nothing to stop us from drawing this logical conclusion.

It is hard to speak restrainedly of so outlandish a proposition that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, and then nine of its precepts later reenacted. Perhaps some reader, fully persuaded of the folly of such a view, may inquire in bewilderment: Is it true that the great body of Protestant leaders have believed and taught so improbable a doctrine through the years? The answer is no. As we have earlier stated, the classic position of Protestantism is that the Ten Commandments are the eternally binding rule of life for all men in all ages and that only the ceremonial statutes were done away. Those who set forth the Decalogue abolition doctrine, with its reenactment result, have forgotten the historic Protestant position regarding the Ten Commandments for the moment.

(For discussion of one New Testament reference to the Sabbath that might seem to support the claim that it was abolished at the cross, see the objection “PAUL EXPRESSLY DECLARES THAT THE SABBATH IS ABOLISHED”)