Objection 28: Though the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, nine of them were re-enacted in the New Testament, and thus are binding on Christians, but the fourth command was not; hence we are not obligated to keep it.
Two fallacies underlie this reasoning:
1. People often speak of the Old Testament in the same breath with the old covenant, and of the New Testament in the same breath with the new covenant. The almost unconscious effect upon both speaker and hearer is a minimizing of the Old Testament to the point of considering it nonessential and quite superseded by the New. And if one adds to this the idea that the Ten Commandments are part of the old covenant, the way is paved for the kind of reasoning set forth in the objection now before us.
But we have already shown (Objection 5) that the Ten Commandments are not the old covenant, and that the New Testament in no way supersedes the Old Testament (Objection 1). When we keep clearly in mind 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 (Objection 24, Objection 25) those who make this claim admit that nine of the ten commands state eternal moral principles or laws. He therefore finds himself in the curious position of declaring that eternal things can be abolished. 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? There is only one answer to this question, as the objector himself evidently realizes, for he speaks of the re-enactment of nine of the ten.
His dilemma is this: He must needs abolish the Ten Commandments in order to do away with the Sabbath command, which is in the heart of it. But abolishing the Ten Commandments creates moral chaos, so he must promptly re-enact nine of the precepts.
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 the light of these facts the claim that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross takes on a monstrous quality. When Christ died on the cross, was the moral nature of God changed? It is sacrilege even to ask the question. So long as God is unchanged (Mal. 3:6) the moral principles radiating from His nature remain unchanged. So long as God 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 was 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 abolished, 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 his re-enactment theory. The casual onlooker may feel that probably all is well, for does not the re-enactment thus preserve the continuity of moral law in the universe? Well yes, if we might think of the re-enactment as we would think of the changing of gears in an automobile traveling the highway. But to make this kind of comparison is to violate both language and history. The idea of gear shifting, with forward motion continuing, has nothing in common with the thought of abolition.
Furthermore, the figure of gear shifting implies essentially no tinier interval in the transition. But it is this point of time interval that 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 re-enactment of nine of the ten commands, did not pen their inspired manuscripts until twenty, thirty, forty years after the cross!
This simple historical fact leads to the fantastic conclusion that the whole world, if not the whole universe, was free from the great moral laws for this period of time. For example, when we inquire of 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 re-enacted laws against these. Then he will probably quote Romans 13:9, where there is certainly found explicit prohibition of these crimes. But there is general agreement that Paul wrote Romans around the year 58 AD. What about the 27 years between 58 AD and the crucifixion? Was there no moral law during this time?
But there is a further dilemma that confronts those who present the re-enactment theory. They seem hard pressed to find in the New Testament explicit restatements of all the nine commands. So they generally draw on Christ's words recorded in the four Gospels. But those words were uttered before His crucifixion! We cannot speak of re-enacting a law before it is abolished. Nor can the objector consistently contend that the cross marks the dividing point between the old and the new, with all things becoming new at the resurrection, and then at another time offer Christ's words before His crucifixion as exhibits of the reenacted law.
Nor is this all the perplexity that confronts those who set forth this re-enactment theory. They are really not able to 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 convincing indictment against Rome for the copious statuary in the Catholic churches.
This is strange, indeed, if the re-enacted 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 command, was needlessly detailed; or that, in inspiring New Testament writers, He failed to have them be as specific as needed? Either conclusion would be sacrilegious. We need accept neither.
As earlier set forth in the discussion on the equal authority of the Old and the New Testament (Objection 1), 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 in illustration of what they are presenting, and sometimes those quotations are from the Ten Commandments. At times the quotations are brief; at other times, more extended. That explains why the precepts of the Ten Commandments are not generally found in exactly 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 made reference.
In the light of these facts, there is no point to the contention that the fourth command is not re-enacted 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. To the contrary, the references to it are as plentiful as to any other command. Note the following:
1. Our Lord declared, "The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2:27. Mark, in writing down these words of our Lord years after the cross, felt no necessity 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? Obviously, that the words of our Lord still stand, and that the Sabbath remains. Yes, the writers of the New Testament were silent at times regarding the Sabbath, but not the kind of silence that the objector refers to.
2. Matthew records what Christ said regarding it being lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. (Matt. 12:12) Now if the Sabbath law were abolished at the cross, how important that Matthew should add immediately a comment to explain to the early Christians who might read his gospel 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 such a comment, Matthew's readers must conclude that Christ's counsel on the matter doing good on the Sabbath is still very much binding upon them.
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." Matt. 24:20. Cestius Gallus temporarily besieged Jerusalem in 66 AD, but 35 years after the crucifixion, there is the Sabbath day, standing in distinction as God’s holy day of rest, just as always.
The force of this question is so great that some have sought to weaken it by declaring that on the Sabbath the gates of Jerusalem would be shut, hindering flight. But Christ, who knew all the future, knew that, when Jerusalem was first compassed with Roman legionaries in 66 AD, the Jews would go out to fight the Romans on the Sabbath day! (See Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, book 2, chap. 19) Further, the command to flee is addressed to everyone “which be in Judea." (Matt. 24:16) Obviously, the whole of Judea was not surrounded with walls and gates. Yet all the Christians in Judea were to pray that their flight should not be on the Sabbath day! Could it be clearer that Christ viewed the Sabbath day as distinct, even decades after his crucifixion?
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 fantastical a proposition as that the Ten Commandments were abolished at the cross, and then nine of the precepts were later re-enacted. Perhaps some reader, fully persuaded of the folly of such a view, may inquire in bewilderment: Is it really true that the great body of Protestant leaders through the years have believed and taught so incredible a doctrine? The answer is no, they did not. The classic position of Protestantism, as we have earlier stated, is that the Ten Commandments are the eternally binding rule of life for all men in all ages, and that only the ceremonial law was done away. Those who set forth the Decalogue abolition doctrine and its re-enactment corollary, forget the historic Protestant position regarding the Ten Commandments.