Objection 12: Through Moses, God gave commandments to His people. Fifteen hundred years later Christ also gave commandments. Adventists fail to make a distinction between God's law, which was abolished at Calvary, and Christ's commandments that bind the Christian. Hence Adventists mistakenly contend that the Ten Commandments and Christ's commandments are the same and equally binding.
The idea behind this objection seems to be that it is legalism to keep the Father’s commandments, but sheer grace to keep the Son’s!
The substance of most objections we have considered is that the Christian need have nothing to do with the law. Now we are informed that the Christian must give obedience to many commandments; indeed, a number of references are given to prove that Christ articulated several new commandments, which are compulsory.
The references given are largely from the record of Christ's sermon on the mount, beginning with Matthew 5:21. We need not enumerate them here. Suffice it to summarize them by saying that they 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 Matt. 7:12) The sermon on the mount is cited to prove that Christ set up a new code of laws that were to supersede those given by God in an earlier era.
But Christ emphatically declares that the golden rule is the epitome of the “law and the prophets”:
“Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matt. 7:12.
As we have had reason to explain in response to previous objection, “the law and the prophets” is how the people of Christ’s time referred to the Old Testament, the law being the Pentateuch or the Books of Moses, the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures consisting mainly of the major and minor prophets.
This understanding of the matter is in harmony with the classic Protestant view of the Scriptures; namely, that the New Testament is unfolded in the Old and the Old Testament is unfolded in the New. (See the discussion on this point under Objection 1)
That Christ was indeed commenting upon and expanding very specifically God’s Ten Commandment law is evident in various of the references given by the objector as proof that Christ set up new commandments to supplant those of His Father. Take this reference:
“Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council, but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Mat. 5:21-22.
Or this one:
“And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses.” Luke 12:15.
Many of the allegedly new commands of Christ are very obviously an expansion of the precepts of the Ten Commandments. Consider:
“You have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matt. 5:27-28.
Is Christ here freeing us from the seventh precept of God’s Ten-Commandment law, and setting up a new law? To the contrary, He is showing how broad is the import of that command. Christ did not set aside God’s law; to the contrary, He magnified it, emphasizing its broad spiritual dimensions. 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 honorable.” Isa. 42:21.
The well-known Pulpit Commentary observes on this text:
“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 (ver. 20) had included all this; but they had not profited by the instruction addressed to them.”
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.” Matt. 19:16-17. And did Christ here set forth a new set of commandments? Surely here 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 shall love thy neighbor as thyself.” And this last command, be it noted, is not new; it is quoted from Leviticus 19:18. What further evidence need be offered than this to prove that no new commandment from Christ was necessary to salvation?
This passage provides also a most excellent proof that apparently new commandments from Christ are but an amplification of principles set down in the commands long before given by God. When the young man declared that he had kept all these commands from his youth up, and inquired, “What lack I yet?” Christ told him to go and sell all that he had and 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, which the objector failed to include in his presentation: “For 1 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 loves me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which you 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 forth 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.” Matt. 28:20. And Christ declared, “The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say.” 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, Neh. 9:11-15 and 1 Cor. 10:1-4.) 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 the 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: One: “The remnant . . . which keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus.” Rev. 12:17. Two: “They that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. Those described as saints (Rev. 14:12) are subject to God’s law. Those who are not are thus described by Paul: “The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.
(For a discussion of a closely related line of reasoning see objection 13)