Is the Law Divided?

A certain Christian brother has suggested that the 10 commandments were not nailed to the cross, but another "written code which was against us". Thus the perpetuity and binding nature of the 10 commandments is established forever. However, what is being upheld is really not so much the 10 commandments as the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.

The following is my response:

There is a sense in which the law does not condemn, but the end result is still condemnatory.

Let me explain by using the analogy of US penal law as applied in any State.

Penal law is a corpus or body of law. It is comprised of various components or “codes”. I am describing penal law only from my familiarity with criminal law since I work every day in criminal court rooms (I am a California Certified Court Interpreter). However, I am not an attorney so please take the following only for the sake of argument and not for “the truth of the matter”.

Here are some of the component codes of penal or criminal law.

The Penal Code. This Code by itself does not condemn. It merely states the law. These are the many Do’s and Don’ts that define social behavior in keeping with the State’s legislature regarding acceptable behavior. It is behavior that is either punishable or not punishable “by law”. Yet the Penal Code by itself does not condemn.

The Evidentiary Code. This Code regulates all matters that define the legality of evidentiary proof. Some proof may be considered as evidence, other may not. This Code limits the scope of proof and evidence that may or may not be used against a defendant.

The Trial Code. These regulations define the rules that govern all criminal proceedings. These cover the judges and attorneys’ powers as well as the jury’s function, behavior and authority during an actual trial.

The Sentencing Code. These are the punishments corresponding the violations of the various Penal Codes. These cover from fines to jail, state prison, and even up to the death sentence. These are the condemnatory codes, perhaps akin to what you call the “written code” which are used to pass sentence or condemnation.

These and many other codes form the entire Corpus of Penal or Criminal Law.

Not one of these codes by itself is The Law. All of them, together, as a corpus is The Law.

Not one of them, by itself is condemnatory. All of them as a body of law have a condemnatory function.

The Penal Code which defines appropriate behavior as approved by the State’s legislature representing society, does not condemn. It is only in this limited manner in which I agree with the notion that the 10 commandments do not condemn. Yet the Penal Code for its intended purpose of regulating society cannot be extirpated from its place within the entire corpus of The Law.

Given this analogy is taken from modern criminal law, but the function of law is always the same: to regulate human behavior, and thus “save” society from its destructive elements.

Yet, when applied to the 10 commandments, the analogy holds true.

These laws cannot be extirpated from the Torah. It all belongs together as one corpus of law which included condemnation. This is the reason why Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:7 when referring to the 10 commandments Paul called them “the ministry of death”: “But if the ministry of death, having been engraved in letters in stone”. Then on v. 9 he calls them “the ministry of condemnation”, because they did belong to the entire law which dictated behavior and condemnation. There is no clearer evidence for the law’s condemnatory function than this passage from Paul.

The 10 commandments as such are not condemnatory by themselves, but they don’t exist by themselves. They exist as belonging to a larger corpus of law, with their corresponding sentencing codes. One can argue that the principles they express do exist by themselves, but the fact is that we are talking about commandments and the law, and not about the principles. The argument that the commandments actually express a transcendent principle actually works against the concept that the commandments exist apart from the law. If indeed the commandments express higher principles, why then are 7th day keepers unwilling to accept that it is not the 7th day that is important but it is the rest of trusting in Christ’s finished work towards which the command points? They cannot accept that the rest of faith in Christ through His shed blood and perfect life is the higher principle expressed by the commandment. They must have both. But alas, after the “substance” of the shed blood of Christ has become a reality, the “shadow” of the day has passed away. This is indeed the stumbling stone for Sabbath keepers. One day, the real Rock fell on me, crushed me, and I was made a new creation in Christ forever. I found my eternal Sabbath day in the Person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His rest will not set with the sun every 7th day, for there will be no sun or moon there. We are not talking about Isaiah 66 when we talk about the Sabbath, we are talking about Revelation 20-22 where Jesus Himself is the Light, and the Temple, and our Sabbath.

When I share this with my Adventist friends (actually brothers and sisters) for I am of that lineage, they become more defensive, or defend more vigorously the Sabbath than the finished work of Christ, or Jesus, or the cross. They have not entered into His rest. For whoever has entered into His rest, “also has ceased from his own works” (Hebrews 4:10).

Well my brother, that’s about all the input I can give you on that. You do seem to be caught up and convinced about the distinctions you are making, and I certainly cannot take that away from you. However, I cannot find the distinctions you are making.

Your brother in Christ,

Haroldo

The Commandment in Romans 7:7,8

I wrote the following in answer to an inquiry regarding the "commandment" of Romans 7:7,8.

On Romans 7:7,8

On these verses and Paul's use of "commandment" as a reference to the "written code" in v. 6, the Greek grammar is illuminating.

The "commandment" of Romans 7:8 is a reference to the "commandment" cited in 7:7 "Thou shall not covet". This 10th "commandment" is the commandment to which Paul refers through v. 10. The Greek leaves no other inference open. The way Paul quotes the 10th commandment in v. 7 gives an understanding why that particular commandment "killed" him.

Most other commandments are negative injunctions not to perform a certain act, Thou shall not kill, commit adultery, steal. When Paul in service to the law looked upon the law, the law did not condemn him because he was not committing these acts.

But then Paul quotes the 10th commandment. The 10th commandment does not enjoin him not to perform a certain act. The literal translation of the Greek tense is "Thou shalt not be covetous". Do you see the difference here? The 10th commandment asks him NOT TO BE, whereas the other commandments ask him NOT TO DO. When the 10th commandment placed him under the obligation NOT TO BE COVETOUS, OR LUSTFUL, all he could see was that he not only practiced covetousness, but that indeed by nature HE WAS covetous and lustful. He could not get away from condemnation from this commandment. This commandment ordered him to be counter to his human nature. When he realized that there was no way he could perform a deed to get away from lustfulness and covetousness but that the law in the last commandment had gotten to his root problem, that he was sinful, he felt that the commandment "killed" him. To put it more bluntly, the commandment "done did him in", to use bad but clear English.

The commandment promised him life "Do this and live" (v. 7:10), but when he saw that the very commandment that promised him life brought him death ("the wages of sin is death"; "the wages of BEING covetous or lustful is death"). He could not get away from the condemnation of the 10th commandment by doing a certain act, or abstaining from it. Even while abstaining from practicing lust, he was still lustful in his heart. Even though he did not give in to his covetous impulses, HE WAS STILL COVETOUS even though he controlled himself. This truth killed him. We talk little about the power of the 10th commandment, but it was the 10th commandment that led Paul to exclaim, "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (7.15), and "Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body of death?"

So this "commandment" is indeed a reference to the 10th commandment and not to some other type of written code. The written code is a synonym for the written covenant used in ancient times as a treaty between two parties, in this case the Torah agreement between the people of Israel and God: "Whatever you have said, this we will do".

I hope this is helpful in your study of this entire issue.

I have a further comment on the Adventists of Tomorrow forum as a whole.

The forum does a whole lot of dissecting, examining, analyzing of truth, but little confessing of Christ as Saviour.

We have the privilege of confessing Christ as Savior, and thus as the Lord of the love of our lives. He has conquered our service through the saving act of His life.

If someone has indeed saved my life I will not stop from talking about that person.

Jesus Christ has indeed saved my life from eternal death and condemnation, and I confess His name as my Savior. I literally owe Him my life, my eternal life and my life now. Without His sacrifice I would have no reason to live this life now. That is my truth, my reality, and the truth and reality for every sinner.

I could not do that in my many years as an Adventist seminarian, pastor, overseas missionary, evangelist, theology professor, and even less as one of the top conference officers in the largest conference in the US.

Adventism rather than encouraging, discourages confessing with conviction that one indeed has been saved from sin and death, and has passed into eternal life through Jesus Christ. This is seen as some kind of Protestant evangelical delusion. Thus the power of confessing in Jesus as the Gospel of God is taken away. Jesus is indeed my Savior. I have confessed him with my mouth, I have believed in him in my heart, and He has given me eternal salvation. This is a wonderful truth that rather than giving me some license to sin as is predicated by Adventists, is indeed the Spirit of life which transforms me from within. It is indeed a Blessed Assurance, a foretaste of glory divine.

In His marvelous grace,

Haroldo Camacho