With Seventh-Day Adventists the decalogue is the one supreme moral and spiritual law of
God, than which there is none higher. It is the law which governs the angels in heaven.
Thus Mrs. White says: "The law of God existed before man was created. The angels were
governed by it. After Adam and Eve were created, God made known to them his law."
"Spirit of Prophecy," Vol. I, page 261. It governs all men in all ages, and in
the world to come. These ten commandments cover the whole duty of man, so that there is no
sin which can be committed that is not a violation of this law, while at the same time it
enjoins every virtue. "No virtue known to the moral world herein fails of approval
and commendation; and no vice or crime of which man was ever guilty, escapes
condemnation." Perfection of the Ten Commandments, page 4. But these claims are
extravagant and unfounded. A desire to sustain the seventh-day Sabbath has led to this
false position on the decalogue. Twenty-five hundred years, nearly half the entire history
of the world, passed away before the decalogue was given at all, as we have proved. This
is strange if the decalogue is so all important.
Let us examine it. Moses says distinctly that all the words which the Lord spoke were
written on the tables of stone: "And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone,
written with the finger of God: and on them was written according to all the words which
the Lord spake with you in the Mount, out of the midst of the fire." Deut. 9:10. This
text is too decisive to be evaded. All that God spoke was written on the tables and was a
part of the decalogue. Here are the first of those words: "And God spake all these
words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me," etc. Ex.
20:1-3. These words are as much a part of the decalogue as any of the rest of it. They
were spoken by God from heaven, written by his finger, were engraven on the stone, and put
in the ark. Now look at the law chart which Seventh-Day Adventists hang up as the
"law of God." Are these words on there? No, indeed. Why are they left off ?
Because, if put on, they would spoil their whole theory of that law. They claim that this
law is binding upon the angels. But how would this sound to the angels: "I am the
Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage"? Were the angels in bondage in Egypt? Would not that sound a little queer to
Gabriel and the seraphs, to be told that they had been in bondage in Egypt? Read it to
Adam. That would have been news to him to learn that he had been in bondage in Egypt! Read
it to a free-born American; read it to all the redeemed hosts in heaven. To whom are the
words applicable? Just to the Jewish nation and to no others. For them the decalogue was
framed and to them it was given. For years I searched to find one text stating that this
law was ever given to any people but the Jews. I never found it. These first words show
plainly that it was addressed only to them.
Seventh-Day Adventists assert that the Sabbath precept is the only thing in the
decalogue that tells who gave it. Thus: "Aside from this precept [the Sabbath] there
is nothing in the decalogue to show by whose authority the law is given." Mrs. White,
in Great Controversy, page 284. This is not true. The introductory words tell plainly who
gave it. It was the God who brought them out of Egypt. Here are the name, signature and
seal of that law in the first words of it. Here God stands before them as their
*Deliverer*, rather than as their *Creator*. Their obedience to these commands is based
upon this fact. See how plain it is. I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt,
therefore thou shalt do thus and so. Egypt, not Eden, is pointed to. In the copy of the
decalogue as given in Deut. 5:6-21, there is no reference whatever to creation, while
deliverance from Egypt is made prominent. "To extend it further than its own preface
is to violate the rules of criticism."
What an unnatural and unheard of thing it would be, in giving an important document, to
sign the, name of the author in the middle of it, as Sabbatarians say the Lord did in
giving the decalogue! In our time the name is signed at the close of a document; but
anciently, specially among the Jews, the name of the author was, always given first, in
the first sentence of the document. Thus: "Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto
Ezra," etc. Ezra 7:12. The vision of Isaiah," etc. Isa. 1:1. "The words of
Jeremiah," etc. Jer. 1:1. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ," etc. Rom. 1:1.
"James, a servant of God," etc. Jas. 1:1. "Peter, an apostle," etc. 1
Pet. 1:1. So it is all through the Bible, the name and authority are given first, then
follows the body of the document. Just so the Lord, according to this ancient custom then
in use and familiar to all, in giving the decalogue first announces his name, "the
Lord thy God," and his power, "that brought thee out of Egypt."
This he does in the opening words of that law. Here, then, in the very first words of
the decalogue, and not in the Sabbath precept in the middle of the law, is the name, sign
and seal of the law-giver. Jehovah, who brought them out of Egypt. This settles it that
this law was not given till then, was given only to the Jews and was designed for no
others. To illustrate: Opening to a law passed by the legislature of Michigan, February
16, 1882, I read: "Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the
state of Michigan," etc. Now suppose that some one should claim that this law was
passed one thousand years ago and was designed for the whole world. Would not these
opening words show that this law was not enacted till Michigan became a state and that it
was designed only for the people of Michigan? Assuredly. Just so the opening words of the
decalogue show that this law was not given till God brought Israel out of Egypt, that it
was given to them and to no others. If any one will find a copy of the decalogue before
this time, we will give up the case. All the way through it there are evidences that it
was worded to fit only the Jewish nation in their peculiar circumstances.
Take the Sabbath commandment: "Thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man servant, nor thy
maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." Ex. 20:10.
Think of that commandment being given to angels in Heaven! "Sons,"
"daughters," and "thy neighbor's wife," verse 17, when they neither
marry nor are given in marriage! Again: "Cattle," "ox,"
"ass," etc. Do the angels own cattle and work oxen and asses in heaven? So
"man servants and maid servants." This means bond servants or slaves, such as
the Hebrews owned in those days. This is shown by the tenth commandment, verse 17.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's man servant, nor his maid servant, nor his ox,
nor his ass." These were his property, servants or slaves, oxen, asses, etc. But do
the angels own slaves? Did Adam have servants in Eden? Will the redeemed own them
hereafter? What nonsense to apply this law to the angels and to Eden and to heaven! This
wording was specially adapted to the social condition of the Jews as a nation in the land
of Canaan, and to no others.
Once more: "Thy stranger that is within thy gates." Verse 10. As everybody
knows, "the stranger" was the Gentile. "Within thy gates" was a common
expression meaning within your cities or dwelling in your land. It has no reference to
living on your farm or inside the gates that enclose your farm, as Adventists always
explain it. The towns were walled in and entered by gates. Here is where the judges sat
and all business was done. Thus: "All that went in at the gate of his city."
Gen. 23:10. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates." Deut.
16:18. To this custom of the Jews the Sabbath commandment refers. All the Gentiles
dwelling in their cities among them must be made to keep the Sabbath. This shows it to be
a national law, worded in all its parts to fit the circumstances of the Jews at the time.
This command, then, could not apply to any but the Jews there. Again, the fifth
commandment: "The land which the Lord giveth them," verse 12, plainly refers to
Canaan, which God gave them. The ninth precept: "Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbors" This does not relate to lying in general, but only to a false
oath against a neighbor in court. See Deut. 19:15-19. A man could tell a hundred lies
which would not be false witness against a neighbor. The command against lying is found in
Lev. 19:11: "Neither lie one to another." This is a moral precept much broader
than the ninth commandment.
Every principle contained in the decalogue is also found time and again laid down in
the law of Moses, either in the same or similar words. Thus, for example: Lev. 19
reiterates every principle found in the ten commandments, with many more besides. How
erroneous, then, to call one the moral law and the other the ceremonial law, when both are
of the same nature, the decalogue simply being representative precepts from the law of
But the chief argument used to prove the superior nature of the ten commandments is
that they were spoken by God's voice, written by His finger on stone, and placed in the
ark, while all the rest of the law was written by the hand of Moses in a book. Why were
these commandments thus selected out and given in such a manner if not to exalt them above
all others? The answer is easy: According to the custom of those times, any solemn
contract or covenant was commemorated by selecting some object as witness or testimony of
it. Thus: Jacob erected a pillar as a witness of his vow to God. Gen. 28:18. Jacob and
Laban made a heap of stones as witness of their covenant. Gen. 31:48. Abraham set apart
seven lambs as "a witness" of his covenant with Abimelech. Gen. 21:27-30.
Just so when the solemn covenant was made between God and Israel at Sinai, the Lord
gave them the tables of stone to be always kept as a witness or "testimony" of
that agreement. Hence they are called "the tables of testimony," that is,
witness. Ex. 31:18. So the tabernacle was "the tabernacle of testimony," Num.
1:53; or, "the tabernacle of witness," Num. 17:7. These tables of stone, then,
containing some of the chief items of the law, were always to be kept as
"witness" of the covenant which Israel had made to keep that law. Evidently this
is the reason why the decalogue was given as it was, and not because it was a perfect and
eternal law in and of itself.
Manifestly it would have been impossible to carry around the whole law if written on
stones; hence only a few samples out of that law could have been selected and put on
stones to be kept as a witness of that covenant. So the reason why God spoke these words
was not because it was a perfect law, but to impress their minds so that they never would
forget it. This is just what God says himself: "I will make them hear my words, that
they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live." Deut. 4:10. How much
more simple and manifest these reasons are than the imaginary ones invented by
That the decalogue was merely the national law for the Jews and temporal in its
obligation, is proved by the fact that stoning to death was the penalty for its violation.
When death was thus inflicted upon a man, he had paid the penalty of that law, and all the
penalty there was. But is stoning to death the penalty for God's moral law? No, that is
eternal death at the judgment. A man who is hung for murder has paid the penalty of the
law of our land, the same as the Jew who was stoned paid the penalty of the law of his
land. Will God judge a man the second time at the judgment by the law of our land after he
has once paid its penalty by hanging? No, but he will be judged by another and a higher
law, the great spiritual law of God. And so it will be with the Jews. They will never be
judged the second time by the decalogue, for that was only national, but by the higher
law, the one that requires supreme love to God, and love to man as to himself. A law
without a penalty is a nullity; but stoning, the penalty attached to the decalogue, was
abolished at the cross; hence the law must have ceased there too.
Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the ten commandments are a perfect law, condemning
every possible sin and requiring every possible virtue. But this is all assumption and
contrary to the manifest truth. Which one of the ten commandments condemns pride,
boasting, drunkenness, unthankfulness, love of pleasure, anger, filthy talk, impatience,
variance, selfishness, and the like? Which one of the ten commandments requires us to feed
the poor, to visit the fatherless and the widow, to suffer long and be kind, to be gentle,
meek, temperate, to pray, to repent, to go to meeting, to forgive, and the like? No, the,
decalogue does no such thing, because it was made for no such purpose. It was merely
prohibitory in its nature. The man who merely did nothing, who simply avoided crime, kept
that law. But the law of God, by which a Christian must live, requires him to do, and to
do much. He must love God, love his neighbor, love his enemies, visit the widow and the
needy, suffer wrong, be patient, entertain strangers, and be active in every good work.
It requires unceasing activity and the consecration of all our energies to good works;
but the decalogue requires nothing but to avoid open crime. The decalogue alone is never
called the law of God, nor the law of the Lord, nor a perfect law, nor is it said that any
one will be judged by it, or that it is binding on Christians.
The Catholic Division Of The Decalogue
Seventh-Day Adventists have made a great ado over the way Catholics divide and number
the ten commandments. They have gotten up a chart showing in one column the decalogue
"as changed by the pope" and in another as "given by God." Here they
show how "the pope has changed God's law in fulfillment of Dan. 7:25." According
to this, the Catholics included in the first commandment what we have in the first two.
Then our third is their second, our fourth their third, and so on till our tenth of which
they make two. Adventists claim that the pope did this to get rid of the second
commandment and to change the Sabbath. But the whole thing is utterly false, as may be
seen under the word decalogue in any religious encyclopedia. The Schaff-Herzog
Encyclopedia says: "There have been three arrangements of the decalogue--the Talmudic
(Jewish), the Augustinian (adopted by the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches), and the
Hellenistic (Greek), the view of Philo, Josephus, Origen, the Greek and Reformed churches,
etc. The following table exhibits the differences, the record in Ex. 20 being used.
1. I am the Lord, etc.(v.2)
2. Against Idols and Images,(1-6).
4. The Sabbath.
5. Filial Obedience.
9. False Witness.
1. Against Idols, (v.3).
2. Against Images, (4-6).
4. The Sabbath.
5. Filial Obedience
9. False witness.
1. Against Idols and Images (3-6).
3. The Sabbath.
4. Filial Obedience.
8. False witness.
9. Thou shalt not covet they neighbors h. (17)
10. The rest of v. 17.
It will be seen here that the Catholics have simply followed the early fathers in this,
while we have followed the Greeks. The pope had nothing to do with making this division of
the commandments. It will be seen that according to the Talmudic (Jewish) division, which
is the oldest of all, the first commandment is the words, "I am the Lord thy God
which brought thee out of the land of Egypt," etc. The Jews, the Catholics, and the
Lutherans include in their first commandment the introductory words, "I am the Lord
thy God," &c., just as all should do, for these are the most important words of
all, for they tell who gave that law. Adventists expunge these to save their theory. Thus,
as I learned more, I began to see on every hand how the arguments of the Adventists were
fallacious and contrary to history and to facts.
Eminent Authors On The Decalogue
Many of the most eminent, devout and learned men of the church have held that the
decalogue was abolished, though they were far from being Antinomians.
Among these were the apostolical fathers, Luther, Calvin, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan,
Doddridge, Whately, Grotius, Locke, Sherlock, Watts, Hessey, Judson, George Dana Boardman,
and a host of such men. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, says: "The law promulgated on Horeb
is now old and belongs to yourselves (Jews) alone: but this is for all universally. Now
law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it." Dialogue with Trypho,
Chap. 11. On this Elder Andrew says: "That Justin held to the abrogation of the ten
commandments is also manifested." Testimony of the Fathers, page 43.
Tertullian, A. D. 200, says: "The abolition of the ancient law we fully
admit." Against Marcian, Book 5. Chap. 2. On the law he quotes Col. 2:16, and says:
"The apostle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished." Ibid. Chap. 19.
Luther says: "The ten commandments do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but
only to the Jews. If a preacher wishes to force you back to Moses, ask him whether you
were brought by Moses out of Egypt. If he says no, then say: 'How, then, does Moses
concern me, since he speaks (in the ten words) to the people that have been brought out of
Egypt.' In the New Testament Moses comes to an end and his laws lose their force."
See Kitto's Cyclopedia, Article Law. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says: "In its
individual, or what is usually called its 'moral' aspect, the Law bore equally the stamp
of transitoriness. It seems clear enough that its formal, coercive authority as a whole,
ended with the close of the Jewish dispensation." Art. Law.
Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, says: "They [Christ and the apostles]
even clearly indicate that the moral law is by no means excepted when they speak of the
abolition of the law in general." Art. Law.
The recent popular commentary of Jamison, Faussett and Brown, says: "The law
(including especially the moral law wherein lay the chief difficulty in obeying) is
abrogated to the believer as far as it was a compulsory, accusing code." On Col.
The Encyclopedia Britannica says: "The ten commandments do not apply to us
Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews." On the Ten Commandments.
Says Dr. Dobbs, Baptist: "Nor is this 'new and dangerous teaching.' It was the
doctrine of the Protestant reformers of the sixteenth century. Calvin argues in this
strain in his Institutes. The eminent Baptist scholar and commentator, John Gill, says,
writing on Ex. 20:1,2: 'Verse 2 shows that this body of laws was delivered out to the
people of Israel, and primarily belongs to them; for of no other people can the above
things be said.' On Matt. 5:17, and 2 Cor. 3:7-11, Gill is emphatic in similar reaching.
Read this, on the latter passage: 'The law is that which is done away; not merely the
ceremonial law, or the judicial law; but the whole ministry of Moses; and particularly the
law of the decalogue.' I close by citing an incident related by Mrs. Emily C. Judson, in
the Life of Adoniram Judson, by his son, Dr. Edward Judson. Mrs. Judson says that her
husband once reproved her for introducing some lessons from the Old Testament into her
Bible classes, 'comparing it to groping among shadows when she might just as well have the
noonday sun.' Mrs. Judson in relating this incident, says: 'My impression, drawn from many
a long talk, is that he considered the Old Testament as the Scriptures given to the Jews
especially, and to them only. He did not like the distinction commonly drawn between the
moral and the ceremonial law, and sometimes spoke with an earnestness amounting to
severity, of the constant use made of the ten commandments by Christians. He thought the
Old Testament very important as explanatory and corroborative of the New -- as a portion
of the inspiration which came from God, etc., but binding on Christians only so far as
repeated in the New Testament. He used to speak of the Mosaic law as fulfilled in Christ,
and so having no further power whatever; and to say that we have no right to pick out this
as moral, and therefore obligatory, and the other as ceremonial and no longer demanding
obedience. Practically, we had nothing to do with the Old Testament law."' Life of
Judson, pages 411,412.
Rev. George Dana Boardman, D. D., the eminent Baptist divine, in his recent book on
"The Ten Commandments," says: "Although the decalogue, in its spirit, is
for all lands and ages, yet, in its letter, it was evidently for the Jews. The very
preamble proves the assertion: 'God spake all these words, saying: I am Jehovah, thy God,
who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' Then follow the
ten commandments, based on the unique fact that Jehovah was the covenant God of
Israel." Pages 127-130.
John Milton says: "With regard to the doctrine of those who consider the decalogue
as a code of universal morality, I am at a loss to understand how such an opinion should
ever have prevailed; these commandments being evidently nothing more than a summary of the
whole Mosaic law as the fourth is of the whole ceremonial law; which therefore can contain
nothing applicable to the gospel worship." Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. 1,
Book 2, Chap. 7.
Istražimo to. Mojsije
kaže jasno da su sve reči koje je Gospod izgovorio bile napisane na
kamene ploče: "I Gospod mi dade dve kamene ploče, ispisane prstom
Božjim: i na njima je pisalo po svim rečima koje je Gospod govorio s vama na brdu, usred ognja. " Pnz. 9:10. Ovaj tekst je previše odlučujući da bi se izbegao. Sve što je Bog govorio je napisano na tablama i bilo deo Dekaloga. Evo
prve od tih reči: "I Bog reče sve ove reči, govoreći, sam Gospod,
Bog tvoj, koji sam te izveo iz zemlje Egipatske, iz kuće ropstva nećeš
imati drugih bogova osim mene", itd. Ex. 20:1-3. Ove reči su isto toliko deo Dekaloga kao bilo koje od njegovog ostatka. One su izgovorene od strane Boga s neba, napisane njegovim prstom, bile urezane u kamenu, i stavljene u kovčeg. Sada pogledajte grafikon zakona koji Adventisti okačinju kao "Božji zakon." Jesu li ove reči tu? Ne, zaista. Zašto su one izostavljene? Jer, ako se stave na, one će pokvariti celu njihovu teoriju tog zakona. Oni tvrde da je ovaj zakon obavezujući po anđele. No, kako bi to zvučilo anđelima: "Ja sam Gospodin, Bog tvoj, koji sam te izveo iz zemlje egipatske, iz kuće ropstva"? Jesu li anđeli bili u ropstvu u Egiptu? Ne bi li to zvučalo malo ćaknuto na Gabriela i serafime, da im se kaze da su bili u ropstvu u Egiptu? Pročitajte to Adamu. To bi bila vest za njega da sazna da je on bio u zarobljeništvu u Egiptu! Pročitajte ga slobodno Amerikancima; Pročitajte ga svoj otkupljenoj vojsci na nebu. Za koga su te reči primenjive? Samo na jevrejski narod i ni na koga drugog. Za njih Dekalog je uramljen i njima je dat. Godinama sam tražio da naćem jedan tekst koji navodi da su ovaj zakon ikada dobili bilo koji ljudi sem Jevreja. Nikada ga nisam pronašao. Te prve reči pokazuju jasno da je upućen samo za njih.
glavni argument koji se koristi u dokazivanju superiorne prirode deset zapovesti
je da su izgovorene Božjim glasom, napisane njegovim prstom na kamenu, i
stavljene u kovčeg, dok je sav ostali zakon napisao Mojsije u knjigu. Zašto su ove zapovesti tako izabrane od njih i date na takav način, ako ne da ih se uzvisilo iznad svih ostalih? Odgovor
je jednostavan: Prema običaju tih vremena, bilo koji svečani ugovor ili
sporazum je obeležen odabirom nekog predmeta kao svedoka ili svedočenja o
njemu. Tako: Jakov je podigao stub kao svedok njegovog zaveta Bogu. Post 28:18. Jakov i Laban su slozili gomilu kamenja kao svedok njihovog saveza. Post 31:48. Abraham odvoji sedam jagnjadi kao "svedoka" svog saveza s Abimelekom. Post 21:27-30.
Baš tako kada je svečani savez sklopljen između Boga i Izraela na Sinaju,
Gospod im je dao kamene ploče uvek da drže kao svedoka ili
"svedočenja" o tom sporazumu. Stoga oni se nazivaju "pločama svedočanstva", koji je, svedok. Ex. 31:18. Tako je Šator bilo "Šator svedočanstva" Bro. 1:53; ili "svetohranište svedoka," Bro. 17:7. Ove
kamene ploče, zatim, sadrži neke od glavnih stavki zakona, bili su
uvek čuvani kao "svedok" Saveza koji je Izrael načinio da bi čuvao taj
zakon. Očito je to razlog zašto je Dekalog dobijen kao što je bio, a ne zato što je bilo savršen i večan zakon po sebi.
da je bilo nemoguće preneti približno celi zakon napisan na kamenu,
dakle samo nekoliko uzoraka iz tog zakona moglo je biti izabrano i stavljeno
na kamenje da se čuva kao svedok tog saveza. Dakle,
razlog zašto je Bog izgovorio ove reči nije bilo to jer je savršen
zakon, nego da impresionira njihove misli tako da ga oni nikada ne bi zaboraviti. To je upravo ono što Bog kaže: "Ja ću učiniti da čuju moje reči, da se nauče bojati se mene sve dane dok su živi." Pnz. 4:10. Koliko su veoma jednostavni i očigledni ti razlozi od imaginarnih razloga koje su izumeli Sabatariani.
Da je Dekalog bio samo nacionalni zakon za Jevreje i privremen po svojim
obavezama, dokazuje i činjenica da je na smrt kamenovanjem bila kazna za
njegovo kršenje. Kada je smrt tako naneta čoveku, on je platio kaznu tog zakona, i sve kazne koje su tamo bile. Ali da li je kamenovanje na smrt kazna za Božji moralni zakon? Ne, to je večna smrt na sudu. Čovek
koji je visio za ubistvo je platio kaznu zakona naše zemlje, isto kao Jevrej koji je kamenovan platio kaznu zakona svoje zemlje. Hoće li Bog suditi čoveku drugi put na sudu prema zakonu naše zemlji nakon što je jednom platio svoju kaznu vešanjem? Ne, ali on će biti suđen po drugom i višem zakonu, velikom duhovnom Božjem zakonu. I tako će to biti sa Jevrejima. Oni
nikada neće biti suđeni po drugi put od Dekaloga, jer to je bio jedan
nacionalni, nego po višem zakonu, jedan koji zahteva vrhovnu ljubav
prema Bogu i ljubav prema čoveku kao prema sebi. Zakon bez kazne je ništavam, ali kamenovanje, kazna priključena Dekalogu, ukinuta je na krstu, stoga je zakon tamo morao prestati.
Adventisti tvrde da deset zapovesti su savršeni zakon, osuđuje svaki mogući greh i traži svaku moguću vrlinu. No, sve je to pretpostavka i suprotno očiglednoj istini. Koja od deset zapovesti osuđuje ponos, hvalisanje, pijanstvo, nezahvalnost, ljubav užitka, ljutnju, prljavi razgovor, nestrpljivost, kolebljivost, sebičnost, i sviđu? Koja od deset zapovesti od nas zahteva da nahranimo siromašne, da
posetimo sirote i udovice, da patimo dugo i budemo ljubazni, budemo nežni,
blagi, umereni, da molimo, da se kajemo, da idemo na sastanke, da oprostimo, i da volimo? Ne, Dekalog ne čini takve stvari, jer je napravljen bez takve svrhe. To je bila samo zabrana u svojoj prirodi. Čovek koji nije samo učinio ništa, koji jednostavno izbegava kriminal, drži taj zakon. Ali Božji zakon, po kojem hrišćanin mora živeti, zahteva od njega da čini, i to mnogo. On mora ljubiti Boga, ljubiti bližnjega, ljubiti svoje neprijatelje,
posetiti udovicu i siromašnog, patiti nedužan, biti strpljiv, nositi se mišlju stranca, i biti aktivan u svakom dobrom delu.
Preveo Milos Popadic