TO THE NO LAW TEACHERS!

 TO THE NO LAW TEACHERS!

Can the Ten Commandments be Abolished?

TO THE NO LAW TEACHERS! Some of you finding this Website are Roman Catholic or belong to one of the many Protestant faiths. Some of you will be attending a "Theological School" of one sort or another. Some of you will be "teachers" in Theological Schools. And some of you you have been taught or do teach (if you are a theology teacher), that GRACE "does away with" the Law. Not all Roman Catholic or Protestant denomination teach the Law is abolished. I have found over the last 47 years of my life, that such a teaching is found only in a relatively small section of Christianity - the "fundamental" section of mainly North America. I encountered this "strange" and "off the wall" teaching when I came to Canada as a young man of 18, some 47 years ago now. Yes, I call this teaching "off the wall" or "out in left field" or "from Planet Pluto" because it really is a crazy, silly, and strange idea, that Christians can practice and live a life-style, that believes the Ten Commandments have been ABOLISHED since Jesus died on the cross. Common sense and just human logic, would tell you that for Christians to live a life where they can break the Ten Commandments at will, as if not there, as if God has somehow blotted them out of the New Testament, is such a far out idea that it would simply make a mockery of calling yourself a Christian of child of God. If you are one of those persons that hold the teaching as grace abolishing the law, then I give you the CHALLENGE to read and study the following articles; not from my pen, but from different Protestant teachers. You may also do yourself a huge favor (especially if attending Theological School) by using, with your studies, such Bible Commentaries as "Barnes' Notes on the New Testament." I put forth the CHALLENGE! Are YOU strong enough to take the challenge and read the following studies. If you are, then you will be strong enough to also study from this Website "Saved by Grace" and the APPENDIX to Saved by Grace, which is also taken from various Protestant studies and commentaries.  Keith Hunt (March 2008) The Ten Commandments Ex 20:1-17 (1) I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. (2) You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to thousands who love me and keep my commandments. (3) You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (4) Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (5) Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you. (6) You shall not murder. (7) You shall not commit adultery. (8) You shall not steal. (9) You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. (10) You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. DISCIPLESHIP JOURNAL ISSUE TWENTY-ONE 1984 "You are not under law, but under grace" (Ro..6:14) "Thls is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burden some..." (1 Jn.5:3) "Sin is lawlessness." (1 Jn.3:4) Christians are under a new covenant, the covenant of grace, not the old covenant. How, then, ought we to relate to the Dealogue? The Ten Commandments Are They Still Valid? by KLAUS BOCKMUEHL ARE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS still valid for us today? Are they valid only for Christians, or for all people? Or are they perhaps only for Jews and pagans, but not for Christians? And is it merely piety or the inertia of conservatism that keeps them in the doctrinal strong-room of the Church? Are they still with us simply because no one has dared to question the ancient moral habits of the Church? Wouldn't a business, eager to rationalize for the sake of success, have cleared them out long ago and relegated them to a museum of the Ancient Near East? Some prominent speakers in the Church have come to just this conclusion and caught the headlines with it. One, a German church president, stated that it was impossible to prescribe a catalogue of eternal norms of conduct: rather, the Christian was to decide in the given situation what love would command him or her to do. Therefore, when it came to personal ethics, the Decalogue was out of the question. On another occasion this same man said it was equally impossible in a pluralistic society to accept the Ten Commandments as the basis for social morality and the law of the state - something most countries took for granted until very recently. Another Protestant ethicist brought his sociological thinking to bear on the Decalogue. Calling the Ten Commandments "those ancient norms" and "a nomad law," he relativized them historically and sociologically. The civilized world of the industrial age was too far removed from the world of the Ten Commandments: they could hardly help us, let alone be authoritative. They were, rather, a hindrance to modern life. According to at least two theologians, then, the Decalogue belongs neither to the pulpit nor to the town hall. Where then does it belong? Merely to the history of Israel? How shall we answer these  two suggestions? Should we agree with one or the other, and if not, why not? Why does the Church continue to preach the Ten Commandments? I shall try to answer these questions with three points: The Ten Commandments 1) obligate the people of God to whom they are given; 2) recommend themselves to every person as an appropriate definition of the good; 3) are the framework of Christian ethics: they need to be filled by love, by the guidance of God's Spirit. 1. THEY OBLIGATE GOD'S PEOPLE  While studying the Bible, it is of primary importance to notice the circumstances and context of the text. For example, consider this introduction to the Ten Commandments: "Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you" (Dt. 4:1-2). To whom is this appeal of Moses directed? To "Israel," and more exactly to a certain generation in the history of the people of Israel - those who came out of Egypt. The Exodus is the original historical setting of the Ten Commandments. But is that single generation the only one to whom the Decalogue is addressed? Already at Mt.Sinai, questions about the general and timeless applicability of these words were raised - the first precedent for similar questions today: "In the future, when your son asks you, 'What is the meaning of the stipulations, decrees and laws the LORD our God has commanded you?" (Dt. 6:20; cf. Ex. 20:2; Dt. 4:34). "The Lord OUR God" - that the Lord of the Decalogue is our God is accepted. But as to the commandments, we hear the little note of disassociation, "God has commanded you." But this second generation was already being told that the commandments were binding on all generations of Israel, every living generation, because they all belong together as a "corporate personality." Therefore, the answer must clearly be, "No, the Decalogue is not just addressed to a single generation.." Israel is a special case. They are the people of the covenant with God, and the Ten Commandments are the basic law and constitution of that covenant. In his teaching on the "Decalogue" Luther stressed the importance of discerning to whom a biblical text is addressed, and especially "whether it means you." Concerning the Ten Commandments, he said (in his sermon of Aug.27, 1525, "Instruction on how Christians are to apply Moses"), "From the text we clearly have that the Ten Commandments (as such) do not concern us. Because God has not brought us from Egypt, but only the Jews." Consequently, the law of Moses does not bind the Gentiles - it has no authority for non-Jews. How then does the Decalogue get into Luther's small and large catechism, and so into the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church? And why would Luther himself have interpreted the Decalogue, through preaching and print, more than a dozen times during his lifetime? How then does the Decalogue get into the Christian Church and pulpit? First, although Christians do not belong to Israel in a biological sense, yet from the perspective of the history of salvation Christians are included in the "new covenant," are members of the one people of God: "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (Gal 3:14). "...some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root" (Ro. 11:17). If this is true, we should ask not whether the Ten Commandments are valid for us today, but rather bow could the Church ever legitimately drop, them? Second, it is by the authority of Christ that the Ten Commandments are valid for all who follow Him. Moses is an authority for Christians insofar as Jesus took up his teaching. Jesus took the Ten Commandments unconditionally. In His meeting with the rich young ruler (Mt. 19:18), He quoted them as basic instruction for the way to eternal life. He submitted to the Decalogue when He contrasted God's commandments to the traditions of the elders (Mt. 15:2). Part of His Sermon on the Mount is based on commandments from the Decalogue; His own new teaching is an intensification of the Decalogue, not, as is often said, an antithesis to it. (The wording of the Sermon on the Mount) ”you have heard that it was said ... But I tell you ..." is antithetical, but there is radicalization of the commandments, not antithesis, in the content of what Jesus says. Jesus warned His listeners not to form a misconception of what He intended, a misconception which could easily come up where no distinction is made between God's commandments and human moral traditions. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them" (Mt. 5:17). In His actions, too, Jesus is true to the commandments. His actions on the Sabbath are no exception. If there is to be no contradiction between Jesus' words and actions, His deeds on the Sabbath have to be understood not as the abolition, but as the fulfillment of the Sabbath commandment. For Jesus said: "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 5:18-20). This righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees is the righteousness given to us free from God. Jesus makes this clear when He rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for teaching harsh laws but never living up to them (Mt. 23:1-4). This righteousness, though freely given by God must be realized in the sentiments of our hearts as well as in our actual deeds - keeping the commandments and doing what the Spirit teaches us which by far surpasses the law. For those, then, who according to the "great commission" have been taught to obey everything He commanded His apostles, the Ten Commandments remain in force "until heaven and earth disappear." That the apostles repeated the commandments in the letters of the early Church, and that the Church as a matter of course continued to single out a Special day of the week, also witness to the validity of the Decalogue for Christians. 2. THEY COMPRISE THE NATURAL LAW  The third reason for retaining the Decalogue in the teaching of the Church is that it is the best comprehensive description of the natural law which binds all people. If, as we have seen, the Decalogue is given particularly to the people of God, what does it say to people in general? We find an answer in Dt. 4:6: "Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.'" The Decalogue is described as the special property and privilege of Israel, something it will contribute to the family of nations. This verse indicates that these commandments will be considered astonishingly judicious and sensible by every nation; everyone will reckon them a standard definition of the good. Throughout history their value has been rediscovered again and again. For all people strive for justice, and the Ten Commandments are an apt definition of it. The apostle Paul expressed the same insight and experience: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them" (Ro 2:14-15). To every person the consciousness of good and evil is given so as to make him realize and acknowledge the Ten Commandments as the definition of the good. Ro. 2:14-15 thus is the source of the acceptance within the Christian tradition of the idea of natural law. The ecology debate, too, leads us to suspect that there must be certain fundamental rules in our relations with creation. It is this fundamentally life-preserving quality of the Decalogue which links it with natural law. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his Ethics, called the Decalogue the "Law of Life," for "failure to observe the second table (of the decalogue) destroys life. The task of protecting life will itself lead to observance of the second table" ("Ethics," Fontana Books, 1964, p.341). Goodness or righteousness is what is right and fit for creation; the good is what will correspond to the laws in creation and so will preserve and promote life. The life-sustaining quality of the natural law expressed in the Decalogue brings us full circle, for this is exactly what was said of the Ten Commandments when they were originally revisited: "Keep them, so that you may live." The commandments are God's principles for sustaining His creation. With these commandments, God articulates the law of life of His creatures. Because they define what will promote life, the commandments are an extraordinary blessing for every living creature. They lay out, as it were, the space in which human life will blossom. Whatever action is taken beyond these borders will destroy life. Every commandment represents liberation from a dangerous and destructive temptation: in each instance I learn that I no longer need to search far and wide for the truth and fulfillment of my life. The fullness of life will certainly not be found in theft or with the wife or husband of someone else. The Ten Commandments, then, are to ethics what an area code is to telephoning: They spare us the trouble and anguish of experimenting endlessly among the whole "keyboard" of human possibilities, most of which do not promote life and community at all. Sociologists seem to confirm the "wisdom" (Dt. 4:6) of thism pre-ordering of morality by God. Individuals would be overwhelmed by the effort to decide their actions each time from the full range of what is conceivable or physically possible. The "area code" defined by the commandments is the place where life will prosper. Thus he who has received the commandments can be joyful about them (Ps. 119), can sing "He makes me lie down in green pastures" (Ps. 23:2) and can "delight ... in the law of the LORD" (Ps. 1:2). What, after all, is the aim of those who declare the Decalogue out of date? Do they wish to give freedom to gossip and theft? Do they expect by this to serve progress and further life? Is adultery ever good? For whom? For the deceived party? Of course, those who consider the Decalogue out of date do not wish to promote evil. But where the Decalogue is not, there also the other good things bestowed by God are not. This goes for all people - not just for Christians or Jews. This is how Luther is said to have put it: "He who breaks one of the commandments is like a man who bows too far out of a fourth floor window: he'll fall down and surely break his neck, be he Turk, Jew, Gentile or Christian." 3. THEY ARE THE FRAMEWORK OF ETHICS  For all humankind the commandments I are the proper ground where the house must be built and nowhere else. This the Creator has decided. And this lot will prove a sound place. There is no morass beneath it which cannot be fathomed, no shifting sand, only firm ground and solid rock. A house built on these foundations will weather the crises of history. From other foundations one will have to move again and again, for they will not stand firm indefinitely. God's commandments promote life. This is what Deuteronomy says and experience confirms. However, we must not think of this truth as an impersonal law which functions independently of God. Rather, we should understand that it is the Lord who makes you live. You cannot grasp life with your own hands, it is in the hands of the living God. This means, moreover, that God's commandments must determine what is beneficial. The opinion that we ought to keep the Decalogue not as commandments from God but as rules pertaining to the benefit of man, is already the door to corruption of ethics. It is God's authority which says "this is good." Human insight in the end will come to the same conclusion but often, before the final result of an action is evident, great damage is done. We must reject the fashionable demand today for an experimental ethics which claims the right for everyone to discover his own ethics by trial and error. Often it is another who suffers by my deviation from the Decalogue. Consequently, I may learn nothing, unless the victim of my experiment takes revenge. In this way I may learn painfully what God's commandments sought to teach me without the rod, namely the contents of the "golden rule:" "In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Mt. 7:12). The Decalogue is nothing other than an exposition of the golden rule. As such, it belongs as much to the town hall as to the pulpit. The Ten Commandments are like the guard-rails of a road through a swamp or along a precipice. The rail itself is not the aim of the journey. No one would wish to drive with steering wheel locked, directed only by the painful scraping of the car along the rail. What you need instead is inside control - a steering wheel. The Ten Commandments are standards, but they are not the aim. They are the framework, but by no means the  realization of God's plan in the world. God's aim and our calling and destiny is the perfection of man according to the image of Christ. The aim is a kingdom of justice in the world where God's will is done for the benefit of His creation. The Decalogue is the framework for doing this. But in a given situation, who or what will tell us what is the right thing to do out of half a dozen good and permitted possibilities? If the Decalogue resembles the area code what, as it were, decides the individual number? Because the Ten Commandments only describe the scene of life negatively ("Thou shall not"), the picture still needs to be filled - we must get the particular number elsewhere. Ro.13:10 needs to be understood in this way ("Love is the fulfillment of the law") as does Ro.8:4, which is a fascinating and very comprehensive  description of the process of Christian ethics: Christ came "in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." Here we go beyond the mere observance of the commandments. Here, too, it is legitimate to demand a sort of "situation ethics" because the Decalogue never will tell you positively what is to be done in a given situation. Indeed, we may constantly expect - from the Holy Spirit - a Christian "new morality," not like the so-called "new morality" of the sixties that maneuvered itself into an antithesis of law and love, which certainly does not  represent the spirit and substance or the wording of the New Testament. The unchristian "new morality's" replacing of the stiff commandments with a flexible ethics of the situation is a reaction against much of traditional church morality - a tradition which reduces the instruction of the living God to the Ten Commandments and perhaps a few ordinances for masters and servants, husbands and wives, parents and  children. Does God still speak and guide today? "No," seems to be the answer of traditional ethics. Traditional dogmatics rightly rejected Deism, which patterned God after a watchmaker who has made a clock and set it in motion, and then has left it to run by itself. But in ethics, these same theologians who rejected Deism's inactive God seem to confess a God who, after having pronounced the commandments, left the scene and is now silent. Hence, there is a certain historic justification for the rebellion of the new morality. In the New Testament, however, the Ten Commandments are not abolished; they are surpassed, and thus fulfilled. Christians must reject Joseph Fletcher's and John A.T. Robinson's antithesis of law and love, and their consequent dismissal of the law. This is not compatible with Paul's phrase, "love fulfills the law." Instead, they read Paul as if he had said, "love bypasses the law." We must not succumb to a dichotomy of law and love. Christian ethics involves not the alternative of law or freedom, but the synthesis of law and spirit. The Spirit and Scripture are consistent because both are the Word of the same God. It is in the field defined by the Decalogue and nowhere else that God will continue to instruct, prohibit, and command in more detail. Because the Ten Commandments are the appointed place for the dialogue and communication of God and man, they remain valid for all of us. Law and gospel must go together.                               .............. KLAUS ROCKMUEHL is Professor of Theology and Ethics of Regent College Vancouver, B.C. Canada. AMEN and again I say AMEN - Keith Hunt