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